Lists Home |
Date Index |
>>Anyhow, I too now have a URI:
> Properly this is a URI reference.
So it is.
> so while you are (I assume) the authority on the type of
> the resource identified
> and you are free to assert that it identifies a
> hypertext document, there is
> nothing that mandates this. Indeed you are also free to
> assert that this URI represents _you_ if you so choose.
I agree. But it would not be Grice-anly cooperative to
assert that it represented *both* of them. Thus if
someone queries the semantic web "Does http://www.ccil.org/self.xtm#self
contain 32 characters?" the answer would be "No",
since John Cowan is not representable in characters.
> The point is that URIs leverage the global naming and
> registration system to allow people to create URIs and
> define what these URIs represent.
Create, yes; define, how? Only by some metadata
convention such as RDF or TM.
> in predicate logic:
> for all ?person such that
> mailbox(?person,"mailto:email@example.com") and
> name(?person, "Jonathan Borden")
Sure, absolutely. The same can be said of me and my
two mailboxes. But since a resource is anything that
has identity, and every resource can potentially have
a URI, we still must:
1) decide the URI of ?person such that name(?person,
2) figure out how to make this URI available to others.
> Considering that such logics have been around and well
> characterized for many decades, I am not sure what topic
> maps bring to the table. I do think that I need
> something like a topic map to see how these concepts
> relate between TM, RDF, FOPL etc.
TM and RDF are equivalent in power. TM predefines certain
predicates such as nameOf, trueWithRespectTo, typeOf,
instanceOf, playsRole, and provides a syntax for
expressing them. I owe several people a paper explaining
the details, and I'm basically hung up on a single
RDF detail -- and lack of time, of course, lack of time.
Both TM and RDF are capable of expressing FOPL ground terms
only: they have no concept of quantified variables.
(The obsolescent RDF concepts of aboutEach and aboutEachPrefix
were a minor exception.) One could easily write code to
transform a TM or RDFbase into a bunch of Prolog facts.
> The term "subject" is
> in grave danger of becoming as overloaded as "resource"
"[A] subject is anything whatsoever, regardless of whether it exists or
has any other specific characteristics, about which anything whatsoever
may be asserted by any means whatsoever."
--the XTM specification
So a subject is a resource and vice versa.
John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_