- From: Ed Davies <edavies@nildram.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:11:26 +0100
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
Mark Baker wrote:
> Let's try and keep this discussion concrete. If you answered in the
> affirmative to Chris' first question about whether the URIs could be
> considered aliases, perhaps you (or anybody else) could explain to me
> how that can be so when there exist resources which cannot be
> indirectly identified by all of them.
If somebody thinks the URIs under discussion aren't
aliases then they presumably also think that it is
invalid to translate the Dutch word "kat" to the
English word "cat" because you can't look up "cat"
in an Dutch dictionary.
Doesn't "alias" (or owl:sameAs) mean just "refers to
the same thing", not "identical for all possible
purposes"? I don't think two terms being aliases (or
owl:sameAs) implies that:
1. they take exactly the same amount of ink to
print in 37 point Arial.
2. they collate in the same order in all languages.
3. they hurt your throat the same amount to say.
4. they are as easy as each other to remember.
5. they are suitable for use in the same
circumstances.
6. they have dictionary definitions which are
word-for-word identical.
7. they 303 to the same URI.
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 13:15:28 UTC