- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:46:26 +0100
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
Mark Baker wrote:
>
> 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,
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?
Xiaoshu
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 16:46:52 UTC