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

[Peter P. Jones]

Oh, and my other bone of contention is the fact that in RDF blank 
nodes can't be reliably addressed from outside the document/graph of 
the document.
I see that as being purely a by-product of the XML syntax, and hence 
avoidable.

For example, if I want to create addressable placeholders in TMs or 
OpenThemicMaps then all I need is a decent PSI for the class of 
placeholder and the ID of the topics/themics will take care of the 
rest. So I could have existentially quantified variables and address 
them too.

-- 
Peter

On 7 Aug 2003 at 19:26, Peter P. Jones wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> topicmapmail mailing list
> topicmapmail@infoloom.com
> http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail
>