Lists Home |
Date Index |
I accidentally failed to send this to the list:
"Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" scripsit:
> The usability of anonymous nodes can be overrated as they don't have a
> URI serving as a global unique identifier (and potentialy locator) for
Indeed. One would have to impose a higher-order rule that says "two b-nodes
with identical subjectIndicator properties are to be treated as identical",
as indeed they do in the TM world.
> Using "predications linking them to suitable subject-indicating URIs"
> sounds cumbersome. Using actual resources provides this functionality in
> a more uniform way.
Sure, it's convenient to identify Shakespeare with his picture. Unfortunately
it leads to nonsensical conclusions like "An English playwright has a height
of 160 pixels."
(end of original)
Manos then replied (copied here by permission):
> Ah, I see what your intended use of anonymous nodes originated from. The
> situation you describe is a (quite common) human error in understanding
> and applying the semantics of RDF. Your use-case is also a good place to
> distinguish between retreivable and non-retreivable resources.
This is exactly isomorphic to the TM distinction between resource references
and subject-indicating references.
> The right thing to do would be to use a non-retreivable scheme URI
> (perhaps a URN?) (or an rdf:ID) to denote Shakespeare, as one cannot
> simply download him. His picture should be mentioned as just that, not
> as the person itself. Anonymous nodes are not needed to avoid confusion:
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="nonRetreivable://Persona/Shakespeare">
> <foo:picture rdf:resource="http://URL/to/pic"/>
The rdf:ID to which you refer is the b-node/anonymous node I was talking
about in the first place.
Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan
that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and that women only want them for their money. http://www.reutershealth.com
--Susan McCarthy (adapted) email@example.com