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
good paper
It is a good *goal*, but it is inherently unachievable.
Yes, "you're interpretation of X, as described by Y" where Y is the
graph you're currently considering in whatever context.
The important thing to keep in mind is that ambiguity is *relative* --
it depends on the application. An application that does not need to
differentiate the toucan from its web page will still produce correct
answers even if it uses a URI the ambiguously denotes both. However,
another application that needs to associate a different :hasOwner
property value with the toucan than the web page will need to use a
different URI for each.
Exactly, so as a prudent publisher of data it is wise not to attempt to
constrain consideration of your data in only one specific application
where the ambiguity doesn't matter. Similarly it may not be wise to try
and prevent free speech by essentially saying "this is a toucan, even if
everybody else says it's not, ignore them and what they say", others
will speak and some applications will have to reject your
should-be-valid statements about the toucan, since they conflict with
their world view, where such distinctions are required.
Best,
Nathan
