[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: many-to-many

• To: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: Re: many-to-many
• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 23:08:37 -0700
• Cc: seairth@s... (Seairth Jacobs), xml-dev@l... (xml-dev)
• In-reply-to: Message from John Cowan <jcowan@r...> of "Sat, 25 Jan 2003 00:05:33 EST." <200301250518.AAA27025@m...>
• Sender: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

I won't persist too long on this thread.  I think it boils down to 
philosophical rather than technical issues.  I've used RDF *very* heavily for 
the past 3 year in a lot of production work, and experimentation.  I have 
never seen the supposed problems that are to be solved by published 
subject0type thingies.  I have seen how the effort towards unambiguous 
reference complicate Topic Maps.  Then again, a lot of people I respect a 
great deal believe that the TM machinery is essential.  *shrug*  to each his 
own.

> > But even if someone doesn't agree and 
> > thinks you mean the picture retrieved, there is still a good chance they can 
> 
> How?  Muddling up Shakespeare with a picture of Shakespeare can't possibly
> make any sense.

Perhaps in this example it would be harder for a processor to get along.  
However, I have never seen a problem of interpretation stemming from the 
confusion of an abstract employee (whatever that "means" to a processor) and a 
Web page with an employee record.


> > You claim that with subject-matter identifiers, there is no possibility of 
> > confusion.  This is pure strong AI phooey.  For one thing, even people do not 
> > necessarily share the same definition of shakespeare.
> 
> Whoa.  I know there are problems with extensional vs. intensional definitions;
> I am *not* saying that subject indicators solve every problem!  I merely
> say that they solve the map-territory confusion by clearly labeling each
> assertion as being about the map of Shakespeare or the territory Shakespeare,
> that's all.

"map/territory" is complete mumbo jumbo to me, and has been every time a TM 
proponent has tried to explain this "confusion".  For purposes of computation, 
if the "map" has all the data the computer needs for a particular purpose, 
then it doesn't matter whether or not it is actually the "territory".

Again, I've not run across any practical problem that would illuminate this 
distinction.


> BTW, did you dereference the URL yet?

I just did.  It's a picture of some guy.  If there's a point to it, I don't 
gather it.


> > I still think RDF gets it right.  You treat URIs like exportable identifiers.  
> > Treat them as consistently and unambiguously as works for you.  If you expose 
> > them to others, know that all your dreams about how those URIs correspond to 
> > real world concepts are but a vanity and a striving after nothing.
> 
> But that *is* the ideology of RDF, that URIs refer to Real World
> (non-addressable) things.

Not to me, I assure you.  To me RDF subjects always refer to computer records, 
and I design accordingly.  Maybe that's why I've had such success with it.


> It's that ideology I object to, not the RDF
> mechanisms at all.
> 
> > As you say, one can somewhat simulate subject matter indicators (or 
> > identifiers or whatever they really are) by using blank nodes with 
> > owl:unambiguousProperty, but I have no time for that trick, because I think 
> > it's as vain as PSIs.
> 
> Well, one is no vainer than the other, at least.

They both complicate the models and harm scalability.  I haven't found them 
necessary, and I'm grateful that magic is optional in RDF.


> > Bottom line: I cannot compute the real William Shakespeare.  I cannot compute 
> > the real W3C.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by "compute" here.  I can't *compute* a letter
> to my doctor either, saying I will not pay his outrageous bill, but I
> can and do use a computer to produce it and file it.  When I file it,
> I want to classify it as being *about* my doctor, so I must have a way
> to represent him within the computer.

When I take on such tasks, I am classifying things according to something that 
my computer can process.  This merely has to be a record representing the 
doctor for all the computer operations I plan to undertake.  I have no idea 
why I need to have some sort of magical referent to the actual person of the 
doctor in my computer in order to file and classify his bill.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
The open office file format  - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/librar
y/x-think15/
Python Generators + DOM - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/01/08/py-xml.html
4Suite Repository Features - https://www6.software.ibm.com/reg/devworks/dw-x4su
ite5-i/
XML class warfare - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: many-to-many
• Next by Date: dtd:how to limit the depth of an element
• Previous by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Next by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread