Re: How to name what you get back? was: Terminology Question concerning Web Architecture and Linked Data

>Pat and all
>>>Sandro,
>>>
>>>You should read it well: Chris speaks about "the description.......that
>>>identifies....". That is not necessarily a name.
>>
>>True, but Sando's point is that this 
>>description is returned when you use a 
>>particular name (URI) to access the thing 
>>identified. If you use a different name of the 
>>very same thing, you may well get a different 
>>description returned. So the description is OF 
>>the thing identified, but is ASSOCIATED with 
>>the name, in the sense that only this name may 
>>get this particular description returned to you 
>>by HTTP.
>Is not all this conversation boiling down to the 
>well-known situation of "semiotic triangle" [1].

No, I don't think so. At least not in the way 
that the triangle was used by the people who 
introduced it. In their (very Piercian) sense, 
the signified has to be an idea or concept or 
something mental, since it carries the burden of 
encoding the intentionality of the user of the 
sign(ifier).

>  I've published a while ago a representation of 
>that at [2] as illustration of this post [3], 
>for those who can read French. For those who 
>can't, here it is in a nutshell :
>
>The elements of the triangle are as following
>    The "signifiant" (signifier) is the URI
>    The "signifié" (signified) is the the 
>description-which-we-have-hard-time-to-name
>    The "référent" (referent) is the thing beyond 
>all its descriptions (whatever that may be)
>Granted, using "signified" in the Web context 
>will not help much ... But it's just to show 
>that what is discussed here at length seems not 
>really new stuff for linguistics.

I don't know of any linguistic theory of Web access :-)

Pat

>>What bothers me is the idea that a description 
>>can be said to be 'identifying', which suggests 
>>(especially in this context where URIs are 
>>called 'identifiers') that it contains enough 
>>information to uniquely identify the resource, 
>>which is likely to often not be the case.
>I agree, but description is often made to 
>identify in a given identification context. 
>Identification without context does not exist.
>>>  I can give you the
>>>description:
>>>1) is a guy
>>>2) sits at the bar
>>>3) wears a hat
>>>etc
>>>and that identifies a person of which I do not know the name. We call that
>>>descriptive identification.
>>>
>>>As I said, many things don't even have a name.
>>
>>True, but then they will never have such a description returned.
>Not using URI and direct http protocol. But such 
>descriptions can help to find matching names 
>(URIs) can be returned by a SPARQL endpoint if 
>the above description is formalized as a SPARL 
>query. So names can retrieve descriptions, and 
>descriptions can resolve to names. Llike in 
>natural conversation : the above description is 
>made by John (who does not know the guy at the 
>bar) to Peter, who knows the name, and answers : 
>"You mean Pat?". No big deal indeed. :-)
>
>Bernard
>
>[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_%28linguistics%29
>[2] http://perso.orange.fr/universimmedia/geo/trsemiotic.gif
>[3] 
>http://mondeca.wordpress.com/2006/12/08/lecon-4-anatomie-dune-description-2/
>
>--
>
>*Bernard Vatant
>*Knowledge Engineering
>----------------------------------------------------
>*Mondeca**
>*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France
>Web:    www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Tel:       +33 (0) 871 488 459
>Mail:     bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
>Blog:    Leçons de Choses <http://mondeca.wordpress.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 Friday, 27 July 2007 19:08:55 UTC