>Patrick,
>
> > Yes, but would you agree that there is no one
> > universal space-time coordinate system such that
> > any physical object could have two or more unique
> > identifiers in different coordinate systems?
>
>There is no problem with having multiple naming systems
>if there is a one-to-one mapping between them.
>
>For example, there's a one-to-one mapping between
>rectangular coordinates (x,y,z) and polar coordinates
>with a radial distance r and two angles (assuming, of
>course, that you treat angles modulo 360 degrees as
>identical). For some applications, one coordinate
>system might be better than the other, but you can
>always transform one system to the other. (01)
Provided you know what system they are written
in. But to do that means you need a universally
agreed way to refer to the coordinate system. (02)
>But there are many issues about systems for which
>there is no unique mapping and for which there is
>no clear idea of what exactly is being identified.
>
>For example, a URI that points to a location uniquely
>identifies that location. (03)
Well, that is often true, but that is not the
intention. In fact using file names as URIs is
explicitly deprecated by the W3C. This is why the
W3C changed the terminology from URL (Locator) to
URI (Identifier). See
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/NameMyth.html for
one attempt to explain this. (04)
> But what happens with the
>following cases:
>
> 1. The contents at that location change over time. (05)
A 'resource' in the REST model is a function from
times to representations, rather than a single
fixed 'contents'. For example, a URI might
identify a real-time clock. (06)
>
> 2. The contents move to another location.
>
> 3. The contents are identical to the contents at
> many other locations.
>
> 4. The contents can be interpreted in many different
> ways -- e.g., does the URI identify a web page or
> the service supported at that web site?
>
>Similar problems occur with most other naming systems,
>but they become especially difficult when you're talking
>about abstract stuff like information. (07)
True, they do get rather tricky. But to give the
W3C some credit, they are aware of these issues
and are trying very hard to get them sorted out
and clarified. See the archives of the Web
architecture (TAG) working group, to get a sense
of how hard this is. (08)
Pat (09)
>
>John
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (010)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|