- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:27:21 -0400
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "John Cowan" <cowan@ccil.org>, www-tag@w3.org
On 7/25/07, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > A still better way to put it is that there are no identical*s* > (plural), since if A is identical to B then there is only one thing > being talked about. Nothing is identical to anything *else*, only to > itself. These are all synonyms: the set {A, B} has one thing in it; A > and B are the very same thing; 'A' is just another name for B, and > 'B' for A; A is identical to B; A=B; owl:sameAs :A :B And that is > *why* they... er, sorry, it, is indiscernible: because one cannot > discern between something and itself. Exactly. Which is why the fact that the URIs can be used to indirectly refer to different things means they can't be owl:sameAs. Do you agree? Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:27:27 UTC