Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Re: Peter F Brown's post (Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:35:14)
>>
>> Peter writes:
>>
>> "
>> The spec is clear, yesŠ. but an object is not the same thing as the
>> address of the object (according to the RFC, I *am* my address): the
>> object needs identity as much as the address of it does. That is where I
>> feel this axiom of the W3C falls downŠ
>> "
>>
>> Clearly there is a problem here. But we should be careful to
>> distinguish confusedly designed frameworks from confused documentation
>> of well-designed ones.
>>
>> While RDF specifications, for example, are relatively clear and sound,
>> the RDF primer provides an abundance of examples such as:
>>
>> ex:index.html exterms:creation-date "August 16, 1999" .
>> ex:index.html dc:language "en" .
>>
>> supposed to state that "August 16, 1999" is the creation date of a page
>> and "en" is he language of a page, while both are literal strings and
>> *not* identifiers for a date and a language, respectively.
>
> What?? Why should a string not be an identifier? In fact, it seems to
> me that *all* identifiers are strings. And the second example uses a
> language tag which is taken from an Internet standard for language
> tagging: what could be a better example of an agreed identifier? Why is
> this confused? (01)
Hold on. It is not whether something is a string or not which counts,
but how it is to be interpreted. Of course, "August 16" can be an
identifier for anything you may wish. But it is a string, not a date.
But as the object of a triple, "August 16" is a literal, not a URI, and
in RDF, a literal is (supposed to be) self-referential. Thus, the
denotation of "August 16" is "August 16", not a date. Thus, (02)
<u1> <u2> "August 16" (03)
effectively means that the denotation of u1 is in the denotation of
u2-relation with "August 16" (the string), not with a date. (04)
>
>> But from
>> this apparently confused example one should not infer that RDF itself is
>> confused (in this respect).
>>
>> (This is not to say that RDF is not confused.)
>
> One can make many valid criticisms of RDF, but being confused isn't one
> of them. (05)
I did not say that RDF was confused either. I just said I hadn't said
it were. (06)
vQ (07)
>
> Pat
>
>>
>>
>> Wacek
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Wacek Kusnierczyk
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
>> Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
>> Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
>> 7027 Trondheim
>> Norway
>>
>> tel. 0047 73591875
>> fax 0047 73594466
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> (08)
--
Wacek Kusnierczyk (09)
------------------------------------------------------
Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
7027 Trondheim
Norway (010)
tel. 0047 73591875
fax 0047 73594466
------------------------------------------------------ (011)
--
Wacek Kusnierczyk (012)
------------------------------------------------------
Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
7027 Trondheim
Norway (013)
tel. 0047 73591875
fax 0047 73594466
------------------------------------------------------ (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|