date:20101109


Pete Johnston wrote:

This document mentions the following class


It's all very simple really, when you remove all the conflated terms.

What is this:

?xml version=1.0?
rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;
  xmlns:foaf=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/;
  xmlns:rdfs=http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#;
  xmlns:wdrs=http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#;
  xmlns:dbp=http://dbpedia.org/resource/;
  

  dbp:Toucan rdf:about=http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan;
rdfs:labelA Toucan/rdfs:label
foaf:depiction 
rdf:resource=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Pteroglossus-torquatus-001.jpg/250px-Pteroglossus-torquatus-001.jpg; 
/
rdfs:commentThis resource is an individual toucan that happens to 
live in southern mexico./rdfs:comment
wdrs:describedby 
rdf:resource=http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf/

  /dbp:Toucan

  foaf:Document rdf:about=http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf;
rdfs:labelA Description of a Toucan/rdfs:label
rdfs:commentThis document is a description of the toucan 
resource./rdfs:comment

  /foaf:Document

/rdf:RDF

http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan is simply another name for 
whatever the above is.


Hints:
 - it's not a resource
 - it's not a document
 - it's not an rdf document
 - it's not a toucan

Best,

Nathan

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)

On 11/9/10 6:57 AM, Ian Davis wrote:

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Nathannat...@webr3.org wrote:

Pete Johnston wrote:

This document mentions the following class

It's all very simple really, when you remove all the conflated terms.

I am not conflating terms and nor is my example, but I think you are (see below)

What is this:

?xml version=1.0?
rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;
xmlns:foaf=http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/;
xmlns:rdfs=http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#;
xmlns:wdrs=http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#;
xmlns:dbp=http://dbpedia.org/resource/;

dbp:Toucan rdf:about=http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan;
rdfs:labelA Toucan/rdfs:label
foaf:depiction
rdf:resource=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/Pteroglossus-torquatus-001.jpg/250px-Pteroglossus-torquatus-001.jpg;
/
rdfs:commentThis resource is an individual toucan that happens to live
in southern mexico./rdfs:comment
wdrs:describedby
rdf:resource=http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf/
/dbp:Toucan

foaf:Document rdf:about=http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf;
rdfs:labelA Description of a Toucan/rdfs:label
rdfs:commentThis document is a description of the toucan
resource./rdfs:comment
/foaf:Document

/rdf:RDF

http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan is simply another name for whatever
the above is.

Nope. It's not at all. That text you include is the entity sent when
you issue a GET to the URI. Entity bodies aren't usually named on the
web. It's also a representation of
http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf

You are conflating the resource with the content of an HTTP message
sent to your computer.

You could interpret the tabulator property as meaning the entity
returned when you perform a GET on the URI contains the following
class

Hints:
- it's not a resource

It has a URI http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf, anything
identified by a URI is a resource.

Yes, in Resource Conflation lingo.

No, in reality.

A URI is an Identifier. Remember it stands for: Uniform Resource
Identifier. It should actually be: Universal Object Identifier or
Universal Entity Identifier or Uniform Object Identifier or Uniform
Entity Identifier.

URIs Identify Entities or Things. They can identify anything we can
imagine.

A Resource is a kind of Thing that has physical manifestation in a
specific realm. Yes, we are Resources, Documents, Widgets, but not
in the Web Realm.

You are conflating because Web != Real World. Thus, saying everything is
a Resource, when the rest of the world knows that everything is an
Entity or Thing or Object is conflation that leads to utter
incomprehension.

How do you think Object based systems work? How do you think Object
Oriented Database work? How do you think Object Relational Databases
work? How do you think Relational Databases work? How do computers
work? Is an Address the only way we use a Pointer? Do you seriously
think that the ubiquity of an HTTP network, where physical resources
represent Documents (e.g. HTML, RDF, XML etc..), warrants such overreach
and disregard for the past re. computer technology continuum?

Resource conflation days are numbered. Its usage and acceptence is
inherently inversely related to Linked Data concept comprehension.

Remember my statement above. Same applies to RDF = Linked Data, conflation.

- it's not a document

I think it is

It cannot be!

It resolves to a Document.

Without Documents how can one perceive anything across any medium?

- it's not an rdf document

I think it is

It resolves to a Document Type where the Content is expressed in on of
the RDF markup syntaxes.

- it's not a toucan

Agree. That text is not a toucan.

Yes, but for a different reason. The Toucan is the Referent of the URI.
This is how its always been, if it wasn't you wouldn't be reading this
mail via a computer system that uses pointers to create references that
enables us walk data structures, programmatically.

Kingsley

Best,

Nathan

Ian

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
President CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

2010-11-09 Thread Dave Reynolds

On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 22:17 +0100, Lars Heuer wrote: 
 Hi Ian,
 
 Even if I come from a slightly different camp (Topic Maps), I wonder
 if your proposal hasn't become reality already. Try to resolve
 rdf:type or rdfs:label: I think we agree that these resources describe
 abstract concepts and should not return 200 but 303. Both return 200.

Those are hash URIs, for example, the rdf:type expands to the URI:

http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type

As it says [1] in the RDF specs:

the RDF treatment of a fragment identifier allows it to indicate a
thing that is entirely external to the document, or even to the shared
information space known as the Web. That is, it can be a more general
idea, like some particular car or a mythical Unicorn

So those are perfectly fine. Ian's proposal and the discussion here has
been entirely about URIs without fragment identifiers, so called slash
URIs.

Dave

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-fragID - though that is
an Informative rather than Normative section of the concepts document.

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)

Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 11/9/10 6:57 AM, Ian Davis wrote:

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Nathannat...@webr3.org wrote:

Pete Johnston wrote:

This document mentions the following class

It's all very simple really, when you remove all the conflated terms.

it's a description.

I am not conflating terms and nor is my example, but I think you are
(see below)

What is this:

/
rdfs:commentThis resource is an individual toucan that happens
to live

in southern mexico./rdfs:comment
wdrs:describedby
rdf:resource=http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf/
/dbp:Toucan

/rdf:RDF

http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan is simply another name for
whatever

the above is.

You are conflating the resource with the content of an HTTP message
sent to your computer.

You could interpret the tabulator property as meaning the entity
returned when you perform a GET on the URI contains the following
class

Hints:
- it's not a resource

It has a URI http://iandavis.com/2010/303/toucan.rdf, anything
identified by a URI is a resource.

Yes, in Resource Conflation lingo.

No, in reality.

URIs Identify Entities or Things. They can identify anything we can
imagine.

A Resource is a kind of Thing that has physical manifestation in a
specific realm. Yes, we are Resources, Documents, Widgets, but not
in the Web Realm.

Resource conflation days are numbered. Its usage and acceptence is
inherently inversely related to Linked Data concept comprehension.

Remember my statement above. Same applies to RDF = Linked Data, conflation.

- it's not a document

I think it is

It cannot be!

It resolves to a Document.

Without Documents how can one perceive anything across any medium?

- it's not an rdf document

I think it is

It resolves to a Document Type where the Content is expressed in on of
the RDF markup syntaxes.

- it's not a toucan

Agree. That text is not a toucan.

Kingsley

Best,

Nathan

Ian

Re: Is 303 really necessary?

2010-11-09 Thread Lars Heuer

Hi Dave,

[rdf:type returns 200]
 Those are hash URIs, for example, the rdf:type expands to the URI:
[...]
 So those are perfectly fine. Ian's proposal and the discussion here has
 been entirely about URIs without fragment identifiers, so called slash
 URIs.

I see. Thanks :)

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
http://www.semagia.com

Integrating Disparate Information Systems


On 11/9/10 10:23 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:

John,

Great response.  I am cc'ing in LOD mailing as your comments are 
poignant re. systems integration and the need to separate Logic from 
Syntax etc..


Others: I encourage you to read on, and digest.


On 11/9/2010 1:24 AM, Alex Shkotin wrote:

What do we need for our information systems to communicate properly?
Integration? Alignment? Unification? Information system education?

The first point I'd emphasize is that IT systems have been successfully
communicating for over a century.  Originally by punched cards, then
by paper tape, magnetic tape, direct connection, and telephone.

When Arpanet was started in 1969, there had been a long history
of experience in data communication.  And the latest conventions
for the WWW are still based on extensions to those protocols.

Those physical formats and layouts are very important for the
technology.  And they will remain buried in systems for ages
upon ages.

But you never, ever want those formats to have the slightest
influence on the semantics.  The decision to force OWL into the
same straitjacket as RDF was hopelessly misguided. In fact, even
the decision to force decidability down the throats of every
ontologist was another profoundly misguided technology-driven
decision.  (Note the subtle semantic distinction between profound
and merely hopeless.)


What kind of language and dictionary we need to write question? SPARQL?
What kind of language  and dictionary we need to write answer? XML, CSV?

Use whatever notation is appropriate for your application.  But you
must design the overall system in such a way that the choice for one
application is *invisible* to anybody who is designing or using some
other application.

Of course, there may be some cases where real-time constraints make it
necessary to avoid a conversion routine between two systems.  But that
is a very low-level optimization that should never affect the semantics.
For example, when was the last time that you thought about the packet
transmissions for your applications?  Some system programmers worry
about those things a lot.  But they're invisible at the semantic level.


Where is your SPARQL end point at least?

When you are thinking about semantics, any thought about the
difference between SPARQL, SQL, or some bit-level access to data
is totally irrelevant.  Please remember that commercial DB systems
provide all those ways of accessing the data if some programmer
who works down at the bit level needs them.  But anybody who is
working on semantics should never think about them (except in
those very rare cases when they go down to the subbasement to
talk with system programmers about real-time constraints.)


JS: but every application will have... different vocabularies, and different
dialects. Inside. But with a stranger we usually change language to common.

Not necessarily.  Sometimes you learn their language, they learn
your language, or you bring a translator with you.

But it's essential to distinguish three kinds of languages:
natural languages, computer languages, and logic.

For NLs, translation is never exact because they all have hidden
ontology buried down in their lowest levels.  For computer languages,
the level of exactness depends on the amount of buried ontology.

Some computer systems (such as the TCP/IP protocols) do translation
from strings to packets very fast because they don't impose any
constraints on the ontology.  Therefore, programmers above the
lowest system levels never think about those translations.

For other systems, such as poorly designed software, the ontology
changes in subtle ways with every release and patch to any system.
(I won't name any names, but we've seen such things all too often.)

But first order logic was *discovered* independently by Frege and
Peirce 130 years ago, and *exact* translation between their notations
and all the modern notations for FOL is guaranteed.

Note the word 'discover'.  Frege and Peirce did not *invent* FOL.
My comment is that FOL was standardized by an authority that is
even higher than ISO -- namely, God.  (Please note the Bible,
John 1,1:  In the beginning was the logos, and the logos was
with God, and God was the logos.)

Nobody has to learn FOL, because it's buried inside their native
language, whatever it may be.  But some notations for FOL are less
readable than others.  That's why I recommend controlled NLs for
many purposes.

But learning to write FOL is nontrivial, even in a controlled NL.
The reason for the difficulty is that people are used to the
flexibility of their native languages with all that built-in
ontology.  To write pure FOL requires a very strict discipline
to distinguish the logic from the implicit ontology.

Bottom line:  The distinction between logic and ontology is so
important that you should never confuse people with extraneous
issues about bit strings, angle brackets, or even decidability.

John

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)


On 11/9/10 11:22 AM, Nathan wrote:

Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 11/9/10 11:10 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:


A URI is just an Identifier. We can Describe what isn't 
unambiguously Identified (Named); hence the use of Names since the 
beginning of shared cognition era re. human evolution.


A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  Describe what isn't 
unambiguously Identified (Named); hence the use of Names since the 
beginning of shared cognition era re. human evolution.




ex:about#toucan doesn't name a toucan though, it names, or refers to, 
toucan, as described by ex:about




Yes, it refers to Toucan by .. ?

Put differently, Toucan (a Thing observed by the Describer) is the 
Referent of the Identifier (URI). Thus, the URI is used to distinguish 
the Subject (Tucan) from the surface (Document) from which we perceive 
its Description.


Referent, Identifier, Resource trinity :-) The 3 elements  (in 
combination) deliver comprehensible Representation, to a given beholder.


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)


On 11/9/10 10:54 AM, Nathan wrote:

Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 11/9/10 6:57 AM, Ian Davis wrote:

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Nathannat...@webr3.org  wrote:

Pete Johnston wrote:

This document mentions the following class

It's all very simple really, when you remove all the conflated terms.


it's a description. 


Yes!

We are describing observations. Can't do this in thin air, must have a 
projection surface, hence the need for Documents.


You see, the whole Web of Data vs. Web of Documents is yet another false 
dichotomy. The Web is simply evolving its projection media from HTML 
documents (sorta like blank paper on to which you can scribble) to more 
Structured Documents (sorta like graph paper, what the spreadsheet kinda 
models). This new Document type is like graph paper, also like a 
spreadsheet (supports Name and Address reference values in cells), but 
with a 3-column restriction and unlimited rows.


HTTP lets us stream this powerful 3 column based graph paper document. 
The underlying conceptual schema (EAV) allows multiple representations 
(HTML+RDFa, RDF/XML, OData+Atom, OData+JSON, RDF-JSON, GData etc)  of 
the conceptual schema's model semantics.


We are using a graph paper like surface to hold the descriptions of our 
observations. We can use a myriad of syntaxes to achieve this goal as 
long as said syntaxes are based on a common conceptual schema.  Mapping 
an RDBMS to an RDF syntax isn't some new age magic, it's possible 
because there is a common conceptual schema at the base re. a DBMS based 
Relational Property Graphs vs its relative based on Relational Tables.


HTTP 200 OK means: Document Found.

Content-Type means: Document Content is in a given format.

Content-Location means: Document Location.

A URI is just an Identifier. We can Describe what isn't unambiguously 
Identified (Named); hence the use of Names since the beginning of 
shared cognition era re. human evolution.



--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)


On 11/9/10 11:10 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:


A URI is just an Identifier. We can Describe what isn't 
unambiguously Identified (Named); hence the use of Names since the 
beginning of shared cognition era re. human evolution.


A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  Describe what isn't 
unambiguously Identified (Named); hence the use of Names since the 
beginning of shared cognition era re. human evolution.


--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: Tabulator? Re: More browsers for ISWC 2010 data?

2010-11-09 Thread Tim Berners-Lee

That is if you run it as a web application, for cross-site scripting reasons,
If you install it as an add-on, then (a) you get a much more recent version
and (b) you do away with the cross-site issues -- your firefox just becomes
a document/data browser hybrid.

Tim

On 2010-11 -08, at 15:20, Adrian Walker wrote:

 Hi Tim,
 
 I vaguely remember that, at one time, Tabulator required a modification to 
 the client in order to run.
 
 If that was correct, is it still the case please?
 
   Thanks,  -- Adrian
 
 Internet Business Logic
 A Wiki and SOA Endpoint for Executable Open Vocabulary English Q/A
 Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
 Shared use is free, and there are no advertisements
 
 Adrian Walker
 Reengineering
 
 On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Tim Berners-Lee ti...@w3.org wrote:
 Do I assume that the dog food data does not work in tabulator
 because it the data does conneg and assumes that if you can handle HTML
 then you should not be given RDF?
 
 With tabulator,
 http://data.semanticweb.org/conference/iswc/2010/ redirects to
 http://data.semanticweb.org/conference/iswc/2010/html
 
 which is an HTML web page, not RDF.
 
 If you are publishing data, please publish it primarily as data, not as HTML,
 for clients which can take both equally well.  Or don't use conneg.
 
 Interesting -- if I start at 
 http://data.semanticweb.org/workshop/cold/2010/rdf
 then I can browse, because tabulator in outline mode uses a stronger 
 preference for RDF.
 
 Tim
 
 On 2010-11 -07, at 02:06, Jie Bao wrote:
 
  Hi all,
 
  I added a few known data browsers that can work with ISWC 2010 data
  [1]. If you know other live demos that can browse/visualize the
  dataset, please expand the list, or let me know.
 
  [1] 
  http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/ISWC_2010_Data_and_Demos#General-purpose_browsers_that_can_work_with_ISWC_data
 
  Cheers!
  Jie
 
  -
  Jie Bao
  Tetherless World Constellation
  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
  bao...@cs.rpi.edu
  http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)


On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Kingsley Idehen wrote:


On 11/9/10 11:10 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:






A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  Describe what isn't unambiguously 
Identified (Named);


Kingsley,

I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g. Kingsley 
was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast.


Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as rdf:subjects , 
i.e.

Those opposed: But you might be misunderstood.
Those in favour: We'll take our chances.
?

Joel.







hence the use of Names since the beginning of shared 
cognition era re. human evolution.









--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen President  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)


On 11/9/10 5:04 PM, joel sachs wrote:


A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  Describe what isn't 
unambiguously Identified (Named);


Kingsley,

I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g. 
Kingsley was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast.


Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as 
rdf:subjects , i.e. 


Joel,

Let me be a little clearer re. my statement:

We can't produce high-fidelity descriptions of Things (Entities) if 
the description Subjects aren't unambiguously Identified.


I believe, via Linked Data,  we are seeking to produce high-fidelity 
Linked Data meshes that scale.


English is but one of several syntaxes.

Global scale is an integral goal of the mission, Methinks.

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)


joel sachs wrote:

On 11/9/10 11:10 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  Describe what isn't 
unambiguously Identified (Named);


Kingsley,

I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g. 
Kingsley was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast.


Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as 
rdf:subjects , i.e.


Those opposed: But you might be misunderstood.
Those in favour: We'll take our chances.
?


Perhaps you are both correct,

I believe what Kingsley is getting at, is that in order to refer to the 
description of something (thus something described), you need to have an 
unambiguous name (identifier for the purpose of referencing) to use as 
the subject in statements made about that thing, within the description 
( read as, a way of referring to a description of bar within a 
description named foo = bar, as described by foo = foo#bar ) - Not 
that foo#bar must be an unambiguous name for a thing in the IFP sense - 
rather an unambiguous way to say, on the web, the thing I am describing 
is the same thing bar, as described by foo.


And perhaps what you are saying, is the same thing Kingsley, as 
described by Ghandi and Sexy Beast, was great = 
ghandi-sexy-beast#kingsley


And, perhaps:

Those opposed: We'll take our chances.
Those in favour: But you might be misunderstood.

Best,

Nathan

Re: subjects as literals


joel sachs wrote:
Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as 
rdf:subjects , i.e.


.. and that ones easy,

If { a rel b } infers { b is rel of a }, and b can be a literal in the 
first statement, then b must also be a literal in the second statement.


Whether or not a specific dl or serialization supports the full set of 
statements that can be made, or a subset of those, is a different issue 
all together, a serialization of a dl, cannot determine the real world, 
it cannot assert that { Joel is the name of :joel } cannot be said, it 
can only confess that it doesn't provide a way to say that.


Best,

Nathan

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)


Kingsley,

I'm not sure that you're joking, so I'll answer:

It's unambiguous to those who know that Ben Kingsley was in Gandhi and 
Sexy Beast. It's probably close to unambiguous to those who know that Ben 
Kingsley is an actor, and Gandhi and Sexy Beast are movies. To everyone 
else, it's probably ambiguous, which is my point.


Joel.




On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Kingsley Idehen wrote:


On 11/9/10 5:04 PM, joel sachs wrote:

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Kingsley Idehen wrote:


On 11/9/10 11:10 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:






A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  Describe what isn't unambiguously 
Identified (Named);


Kingsley,

I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g. Kingsley 
was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast.


To whom is this unambiguous?

Kingsley



Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as 
rdf:subjects , i.e.


Those opposed: But you might be misunderstood.
Those in favour: We'll take our chances.
?




Joel.







hence the use of Names since the beginning of shared cognition era re. 
human evolution.









--

Regards,

Kingsley IdehenPresident  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen












--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen President  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)



I guess what surprises me is your use of can't in We can't produce ... 
instead of shouldn't, as in We shouldn't produce high fidelity descriptions of 
things that aren't unambiguosly identified, because if we do, there will 
be no reliable way to merge descriptions from different sources.


I think  it's obvious that we can since we do it all the time. That we 
shouldn't may be true, although it is, I think you'll agree, a contested 
claim.


Joel.






On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Kingsley Idehen wrote:


On 11/9/10 5:04 PM, joel sachs wrote:


A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  Describe what isn't unambiguously 
Identified (Named);


Kingsley,

I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g. Kingsley 
was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast.


Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as 
rdf:subjects , i.e. 


Joel,

Let me be a little clearer re. my statement:

We can't produce high-fidelity descriptions of Things (Entities) if the 
description Subjects aren't unambiguously Identified.


I believe, via Linked Data,  we are seeking to produce high-fidelity Linked 
Data meshes that scale.


English is but one of several syntaxes.

Global scale is an integral goal of the mission, Methinks.

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen President  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)


On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Nathan wrote:


joel sachs wrote:

On 11/9/10 11:10 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  Describe what isn't unambiguously 
Identified (Named);


Kingsley,

I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g. Kingsley 
was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast.


Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as 
rdf:subjects , i.e.


Those opposed: But you might be misunderstood.
Those in favour: We'll take our chances.
?


Perhaps you are both correct,

I believe what Kingsley is getting at, is that in order to refer to the 
description of something (thus something described), you need to have an 
unambiguous name (identifier for the purpose of referencing) to use as the 
subject in statements made about that thing, within the description ( read 
as, a way of referring to a description of bar within a description named 
foo = bar, as described by foo = foo#bar ) - Not that foo#bar must be an 
unambiguous name for a thing in the IFP sense - rather an unambiguous way to 
say, on the web, the thing I am describing is the same thing bar, as 
described by foo.


And perhaps what you are saying, is the same thing Kingsley, as described by 
Ghandi and Sexy Beast, was great = ghandi-sexy-beast#kingsley


And, perhaps:

Those opposed: We'll take our chances.
Those in favour: But you might be misunderstood.

Best,

Nathan



Nathan,

Nathan, I definitely agree with your switcharoo -


Those opposed: We'll take our chances.
Those in favour: But you might be misunderstood.


Specifically, as it stands now, there is great scope for misunderstanding
when dealing with Linked Data. Perhaps the most egregious example is the
widely discredited owl:sameAs. The hope, I think, of Linked Data, is that,
as time goes by, the scope for misunderstanding will be greatly
diminished.

Regards -
Joel.

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)


On 11/9/10 5:59 PM, joel sachs wrote:

Kingsley,

I'm not sure that you're joking, so I'll answer:

It's unambiguous to those who know that Ben Kingsley was in Gandhi and 
Sexy Beast. It's probably close to unambiguous to those who know that 
Ben Kingsley is an actor, and Gandhi and Sexy Beast are movies. To 
everyone else, it's probably ambiguous, which is my point.


Yes, in the real-world.

On the Web it's totally ambiguous :-)

Kingsley


Joel.




On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Kingsley Idehen wrote:


On 11/9/10 5:04 PM, joel sachs wrote:

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Kingsley Idehen wrote:


On 11/9/10 11:10 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:






A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  Describe what isn't 
unambiguously Identified (Named);


Kingsley,

I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g. 
Kingsley was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast.


To whom is this unambiguous?

Kingsley



Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as 
rdf:subjects , i.e.


Those opposed: But you might be misunderstood.
Those in favour: We'll take our chances.
?




Joel.







hence the use of Names since the beginning of shared cognition 
era re. human evolution.









--

Regards,

Kingsley IdehenPresident  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen












--

Regards,

Kingsley IdehenPresident  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen











--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen 
President  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen

Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)