


From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:53:51 -0000
Message-ID: <013101c08241$0b2a98c0$77db93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Bill dehOra" <BdehOra@interx.com>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> what mechanism is to be used to bind a semantically empty
> string to a property, on the web, using rdf language? Binding that
> string to a URI isn't adequate in itself and I think it's an error to
> conflate a unique entity with a meaningful one.

True. But I'm not discussing *why* we would want to do this, only *how*.

> I grant you that "namespaced:loves", "tomahto:tomato",
> "tomayto:tomato" and suchlike really gets you out of a
> hole with controlling any such ambiguity (on the assumption
> that programs which share terms share processes).

Yes: it's fully posible to have a property name that isn't anything like
the property... I could define myns:author as being how many carrots
someone owns. But that's not a problem, becuse you can call equivalence,
and say well this is a fundamental term, and it ties into these. That's
what the SW is about, groups of fundamental properties, so that you can
translate a into a+1 or, even x into y if they are performing the same

> When the web is presented to a person that person will impose
> semantics. That doesn't in any way make a web with machine
> processable semantics. I'm sorry if I'm being a PITA about this,
> but it's important to avoid invoking generalised AI handwaving
> and automagicking demons.

No, I fully agree. The SW can't/won't/shouldn't be any form of AI.. it's
just machines processing data in very useful ways. Humans always have the
last laugh, so transmitting the data correctly is the most important thing.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 12:56:09 GMT
