OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] many-to-many

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Uche Ogbuji scripsit:

> None of this convinces me.  It never has.  I'm sorry, but I don't believe in 
> unoversal identifiers.  I do believe in identifiers by explicit contract, or 
> That means that if you decide that you mean
> http://www.heritage.org/images/shakespeare.jpg
> to stand for Sir W Shakespeare himself, then fine.  Just make sure those you 
> work with agree and go along with it.

Implicit assumptions like that don't scale.

> But even if someone doesn't agree and 
> thinks you mean the picture retrieved, there is still a good chance they can 

How?  Muddling up Shakespeare with a picture of Shakespeare can't possibly
make any sense.

> You claim that with subject-matter identifiers, there is no possibility of 
> confusion.  This is pure strong AI phooey.  For one thing, even people do not 
> necessarily share the same definition of shakespeare.

Whoa.  I know there are problems with extensional vs. intensional definitions;
I am *not* saying that subject indicators solve every problem!  I merely
say that they solve the map-territory confusion by clearly labeling each
assertion as being about the map of Shakespeare or the territory Shakespeare,
that's all.

BTW, did you dereference the URL yet?

> I still think RDF gets it right.  You treat URIs like exportable identifiers.  
> Treat them as consistently and unambiguously as works for you.  If you expose 
> them to others, know that all your dreams about how those URIs correspond to 
> real world concepts are but a vanity and a striving after nothing.

But that *is* the ideology of RDF, that URIs refer to Real World
(non-addressable) things.  It's that ideology I object to, not the RDF
mechanisms at all.

> As you say, one can somewhat simulate subject matter indicators (or 
> identifiers or whatever they really are) by using blank nodes with 
> owl:unambiguousProperty, but I have no time for that trick, because I think 
> it's as vain as PSIs.

Well, one is no vainer than the other, at least.

> Bottom line: I cannot compute the real William Shakespeare.  I cannot compute 
> the real W3C.

I don't know what you mean by "compute" here.  I can't *compute* a letter
to my doctor either, saying I will not pay his outrageous bill, but I
can and do use a computer to produce it and file it.  When I file it,
I want to classify it as being *about* my doctor, so I must have a way
to represent him within the computer.

Not to perambulate              || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
    the corridors               || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose      || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    in the boots of ascension.  \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS