Hi David 

On Mar 16, 2013, at 11:26 PM, David Booth wrote:

> Hi Alan,
> 
> On 03/16/2013 01:49 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> David's assertion that a uri can mean different things in different
>> graphs is an opinion
> 
> An opinion?  It is direct consequence of standard RDF Semantics!  

No, it isn't. 

> Read the spec:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/

Indeed. Section 1.2, first paragraph: "... the semantics simply assumes that 
... a single URI reference can be taken to have the same meaning wherever it 
occurs. Similarly, the semantics has no special provision for tracking temporal 
changes. It assumes, implicitly, that URI references have the same meaning 
whenever they occur."

> The RDF semantics is only defined for a *given* RDF graph.  It does not 
> constrain a URI's resource identity across *different* graphs.

No, it does so constrain what URIs mean. It presumes that a given URI denotes 
some single thing, wherever it occurs. The interpretation mappings are defined 
as mappings upon URIs. not upon occurences of a URI token in a particular 
graph; and the semantics does not mention contexts or any other mechanism which 
would allow a URI in one place to denote differently from the same URI in 
another place (or at another time, cf the above quote.)

Entailment, for example, is defined upon *sets* of RDF graphs, and the 
definition of merging makes sense only if the URIs in these various graphs all 
denote in the same way. 

>  And here is a trivial existence proof that demonstrates that a URI does 
> *not* necessarily denote the same resource in different graphs.
> 
> Graph 1 (assuming standard owl: prefix):
> 
>  <http://example/h> a <http://example/WhiteHorse> .
>  <http://example/WhiteHorse>
>       owl:disjointWith <http://example/BlackHorse> .
> 
> Graph 2:
> 
>  <http://example/h> a <http://example/BlackHorse> .
>  <http://example/WhiteHorse>
>       owl:disjointWith <http://example/BlackHorse> .
> 
> Each graph (by itself) has satisfying interpretations per standard RDF (and 
> OWL) semantics.  And <http://example/h> denotes a resource in each graph.  
> But clearly it denotes a *different* resource in each graph.

The conclusion you should draw here is that these graphs cannot both be true. 
And indeed, if you merge those graphs into one, then that merged graph is 
owl-inconsistent. But that does not mean that the URIs denote differently in 
the two graphs. What it does reflect is the fact that no interpretation of 
names will make a contradiction true. 

>> that does not concur with either the
>> web specifications
> 
> Correct.  As I pointed out, the AWWW's statement that "a URI identifies one 
> resource" is a good goal, but it does not concur with standard RDF semantics.

It is quite consistent with, indeed presupposed by, RDF semantics. As to 
whether it is really the case, that is a whole more complicated question. But 
note that when AWWW says "identify", it apparently does not always mean what 
RDF semantics means by "denote". There is no assumption in RDF theory or 
practice that a URI must denote what it 'dereferences' to using http. It might 
well be the case that awww-identification is unique even while denotation is 
not. 

> 
> nor the goals they were built to satisfy. Caveat emptor.
> 
> Not true!  As I said before, I *agree* with the goal stated in the AWWW, that 
> a URI should denote one resource!  But that does not change the reality: that 
> a URI does *not* necessarily denote only one resource.

You are probably right, but to the extent that they do not, then meaningful 
communication fails. So communication usually presumes that they do, until 
circumstances force this assumption to be revisited. 

Pat

> I also think world peace is a good goal, but it is *not* the reality.
> 
> If we're going to make the semantic web work, we need to keep the goals in 
> mind while *also* recognizing the reality.  Facing reality should not be 
> construed as dismissing the goals.  We cannot simply wish the reality away.  
> We need to do the engineering to make it work.
> 
> David
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes






Reply via email to