• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: URIs harmful
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:56:35 -0400
• References: <001101c2348f$9c4c02b0$1fc8c8c8@mitchum>

[Bill de hÓra]

If axiom 1 was the case:

  1: RDF would not need a Model Theory. We'd have no requirement for
assigning interpretations to URI vocabularies. But, oddly enough that is
not the case; we do have the requirement for a denotational semantics
for RDF and a number of people have spent a lot time on it.

[Tom P]

Yes, but the interpretations apply to sets of RDF triples, not to the URIs
used to identify RDF resources.

[Bill]
  2: we could throw away 2a as redundant. Note: RDF MT requires this
one.

The axioms are desirable, but not observable. And perhaps 2a is not
desirable; this would suggest the languages of the semantic web can't
evolve and will continually need to be replaced.

[Tom P]
This depends on what "sameness" means, of course - is that an NP-hard
question?

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: URIs harmful
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>

• References:
  • RE: URIs harmful
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs harmful
• Next by Date: RE: URIs harmful
• Previous by thread: RE: URIs harmful
• Next by thread: RE: URIs harmful
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread