On 11/11/10 10:00 AM, Nathan wrote:
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 11/11/10 9:00 AM, David Booth wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 07:23 +0100, Jiří Procházka wrote:
[ . . . ]
I think it is flawed trying to enforce "URI == 1 thing"
Exactly right. The "URI == 1 thing" notion is myth #1 in "Resource
Identity and Semantic Extensions: Making Sense of Ambiguity":
http://dbooth.org/2010/ambiguity/paper.html#myth1
It is a good *goal*, but it is inherently unachievable.
Are you implying that a URI -- an Identifier -- doesn't have a
Referent (singular)?
http://kingsley.idehen.name/dataspace/person/kidehen#this does not
name you, it's not a name for you, or the name for you.
It's a name (identifier for the purpose of referencing) of "#this, as
described by http://kingsley.idehen.name/dataspace/person/kidehen"; and
how "#this, as described by
http://kingsley.idehen.name/dataspace/person/kidehen"; is ultimately
interpreted to be, depends entirely on context and application.
> If so, what is the URI identifying?
It's identifying, or referring to, "x, as described by y" and what the
description identifies is open to interpretation and context (a human?
an agent? a father? a trusted-man? a holder of X? a bearer of Y?).
Nathan,
In your response, I don't sense (in any way) the plurality that I sense
in David's comments -- for which I sought clarification.
I interpret David's response (maybe inaccurately) as saying:
http://kingsley.idehen.name/dataspace/person/kidehen#this, isA URI that
can have > 1 Referent. None of your expressions infer that.
Kingsley
Best,
Nathan
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
