- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:47:32 -0500
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- 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? Well, Im not sure what you are saying. I can assert that A=B even though 'A' =/= 'B' and both of the names *can* be used to refer to other things. What Im saying by making that assertion is that this possibility, which could be true, isn't. Similarly, I can assert that owl:sameAs ex:uri1 ex:uri2 . Of course, that assertion should be incompatible with using the URIs to refer to different things, so if they do get used that way then my assertion is false. Pat > >Mark. >-- >Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca >Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2007 17:47:45 UTC