On URI's: (01)
Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
> In so many words, the problem with URIs is that they are not *yet*
> supported by a technology that is widely adopted and guarantees that
> they have value other than as a "guaranteed to be unique" string of
> characters. (John's points about security and reliability and
> expectations enter into this.) And there are many "guaranteed to be
> unique" string "technologies" that are competing to be THE reference
> identifier for lots of different things. What URIs have right now is
> "promise", not "value".
> (02)
Yes - it is nice to have some 'guaranteed unique' string, but even that
doesn't being to solve the problem of what such strings are intended to
mean, and as Ed points out there are more than a few ways to do that. Among
other problems, there can be any number of URI's that are intended to mean
the same thing, but there is no way to determine whether or not they
actually do mean the same thing. What is missing is some kind of agreement
on how to specify meanings with sufficient detail to be unambiguous to
people and machines. That is a function that a common foundation ontology
could serve; the elements of an FO could be labeled by URIs or any other
unique ID system, but the meanings would have to be derived from the agreed
interpretation of the basic defining elements of the FO. (03)
Pat (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|