[topicmapmail] Identities and names (WAS - A somewhat new topic maps format)

[Peter P. Jones]

On 7 Aug 2003 at 15:08, Murray Altheim wrote:

[...]
> 
> Now, I point this out to hilight the fact that behind the scenes of
> all this is a regression of name resolution issues, not just here and
> on computers, but in "real life" too. This is what I think confuses
> TimBL in his classic name-address myth nonsense.
> 
[...]
Assuming I've understood Murray correctly... (BIG assumption)

[I'm not saying I subscribe to what follows; just adding it to the 
brew. Also, I'm only on the first pass so I might not have understood 
certain aspects well.]
In the Formal Semantics Working Draft for RDF (which I'm chewing on 
lately), the text (I think for reasons to do with classes being able 
to contain themselves as classes within their extensions without 
invalidating a key axiom of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory) separates a 
name from its denotation.
If an address is considered as (substituting for) a resource, and if 
a set of addresses resolve to the same resource, then a resource can 
in effect have many names (Morning Star- Evening Star; many senses, 
one reference). Since that occurs with natural language often enough, 
then I'm not sure it should be considered problematic.
In addition, a name in RDF can also be a resource (addressed from 
elsewhere), being the denotation of another name. I'm not sure that's 
problematic either.
Note too that assertions in RDF are independent of contextual 
modulations, and RDF's formal semantic notion of truth is only 
dependent on its defined interpretation. 

(Not including Steve Pepper's argument for distinguishing subject 
location from mere resource location where unaddressable containments 
are an issue...)
The only weak argument I can raise about the RDF approach as yet is 
the following:
a) The set of names is infinite.
b) The set of URIs (as a subset of names) is smaller but also 
infinite.
c) The set of resolvable URIs is likely to remain countably finite.
d) Therefore, given finite time and processing power isn't it better 
to have someway of distinguishing the set of resolvable addresses in 
advance?
Problem: How do you know that a URI is resolvable in advance? Answer: 
Indicate that it should be. It will at least provide some help.

I've many pages of spec to go yet though, so maybe there's something 
covering that later on(?).

-- 
Peter