Re: New version of URI Declarations [Usage scenarios]

Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) scripsit:

> SCENARIO 1: Fred wishes to publish some RDF assertions about a
> particular protein.  He notices that Alice, Beatrice and Carl have
> already published assertions about the protein, and they all use the
> same URI to denote that protein: the URI minted by Alice.  Fred notices
> that if he uses Alice's URI to denote the protein, his assertions will
> be logically inconsistent with some of Alice's assertions, although
> they are logically consistent with Beatrice and Carl's assertions.
> He wonders whether he should publish his assertions using Alice's URI
> -- and post a blog entry noting that his assertions should not be used
> in conjunction with Alice's assertions -- or mint a new URI.
> Question: Should Fred use Alice's URI?
> Answer: No.  He should mint a new URI and indicate the relationship
> (not owl:sameAs) to Alice's URI -- at least rdfs:seeAlso.

That sounds right iff Fred's assertions are essential (identifying) claims,
but not otherwise.  If I assert that aneurine HCl is soluble in water, and you
assert that it is insoluble, it is more likely that one of us is wrong
than that we mean two different things by the term "aneurine HCl".

John Cowan
Consider the matter of Analytic Philosophy.  Dennett and Bennett are well-known.
Dennett rarely or never cites Bennett, so Bennett rarely or never cites Dennett.
There is also one Dummett.  By their works shall ye know them.  However, just as
no trinities have fourth persons (Zeppo Marx notwithstanding), Bummett is hardly
known by his works.  Indeed, Bummett does not exist.  It is part of the function
of this and other e-mail messages, therefore, to do what they can to create him.

Received on Saturday, 1 March 2008 23:22:40 UTC