Re: Some TAG review of "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web"

The best equivalent I have about such a "semantic hook" as a  
reference, I have read in The Wealth of Network [1], a fantastic book  
about commons-based knowledge constructions. At a point in this book,  
the impact on culture is discussed and the notion of "Barbie symbol"  
is alluded to, as a cultural meaningful item that many refer to.
This struck me as being the same naming as a math-symbol such as the  
tensor product (semantic or graphical), and, I feel, applies for  
unicorns as well.

My 2p.

paul

[1] http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/


Le 24 sept. 07 à 22:48, Pat Hayes a écrit :
> Perhaps we are talking past each other. As I understand what it  
> means to "talk about" something, you just contradicted yourself. To  
> talk *about* something involves referring to it, at least. (It may  
> involve a lot more.) So if your talk does not refer, it cannot be  
> about anything.
>
> Perhaps, as you say, this is a bad pun on "about". But my original  
> point was being made in response to a referential usage. The TAG  
> want us to distinguish URIs on the basis of what it is that they  
> refer to: they want to analyze a matter of URI usage by appealing  
> to ontological differences between the kinds of thing they  
> 'identify' (which TimBL and Dan Connolly at least have affirmed  
> means exactly 'refers to' or 'names'.) And they want this to be  
> done even in cases where (we are all, I think, agreed) there is in  
> fact nothing to be identified or named, when the name fails to  
> refer altogether. And my point was that this seems like a bad  
> strategy, because it tries to answer a legitimate question by  
> referring to properties of something that might not even exist.