- From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:12:51 +0100
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: wangxiao@musc.edu, www-tag@w3.org
Mark, Could you elaborate a little more on the distinction that you are making between 'direct' and 'indirect' reference. An example of each would be helpful... and particularly one where the 'direct' references refer to the same thing, but where the corresponding 'indirect' references refer to different things. Thx, Stuart -- Mark Baker wrote: > On 7/27/07, Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote: > >> Mark, >> >> Put all argument aside. I am curious what kind of URIs can use >> owl:sameAs because the impression I got is that you implies only the >> only form that stands is "x owl:sameAs x". But then, what is the point >> of having the term owl:sameAs? Don't you think that you put too much >> constrains on the semantics of owl:sameAs to make it any useful? >> > > A publisher would use it if they had two URIs for the same resource. > It's not a best practice to do that of course, but if you really have > to then that's what you'd use. For example; > > <http://markbaker.ca> owl:sameAs <http://www.markbaker.ca> > > As for my interpretation of the definition, as I mentioned before, the > definition could be interpreted as being ambiguous because it doesn't > distinguish between indirect and direct reference. So when it says > "indicates that two URI references actually refer to the same thing", > I interpret that to mean direct reference, but it appears as though > most everybody else interprets that as being indirect ... or else > aren't convinced of my position that agency turns direct reference > into indirect. > > Mark. > -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Monday, 13 August 2007 13:15:07 UTC