ISSUE-145: LC comment: Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful

LC comment: Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful

State:

CLOSED

Product:

RDF Semantics

Raised by:

Guus Schreiber

Opened on:

2013-10-02

Description:

Comment by David Booth:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0004.html


https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html

In Section 4, The distinction between "identify" and "denote" does not
seem helpful. I think it adds more confusion than clarity. AFAICT a
key point of using the notion of interpretations is to allow IRIs to be
mapped to entities in one's universe of discourse -- whatever real world
entities one wishes to talk about. By distinguishing between "identify"
and "denote" in essence *two* mappings are being created: an
identifies-mapping and a denotes-mapping. This gives the impression
that the identifies-mapping is the one that is used colloquially, but
the denotes-mapping is the formal one addressed in the RDF Semantics.
It seems to me that this dichotomy defeats the purpose of
interpretations. Interpretations are supposed to allow us to connect
the formal semantics to the real world universe of discourse that we
care about -- not to some universe of irrelevant, fictional entities
that exist only in the idealized world of the RDF Semantics.

In reading this section, I also get the impression that the motivation
for this distinction is to avoid quandaries cased by having an IRI that
may ambiguously denote two different things. Defining two different
notions of mapping from IRIs to resources is the *wrong* solution to
that problem. There is no justification for preferentially choosing one
of those mappings over the other. They can both perfectly well be
denotes-mappings, but under different *interpretations*. (Remember: the
same IRI can perfectly well map to *different* resources in different
interpretations.) This already works perfectly under the existing RDF
Semantics.

In short, I think the definition of "identify" should be eliminated, as
it adds confusion rather than helping.

David

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. Re: D-entailment question in http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PR-rdf11-mt-20140109/ (from david@dbooth.org on 2014-02-10)
2. Re: RDF Semantics - datatypes and "identifies" vs "denotes" - ISSUE-145 (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-10-29)
3. Re: RDF Semantics - datatypes and "identifies" vs "denotes" - ISSUE-145 (from kidehen@openlinksw.com on 2013-10-29)
4. Re: RDF Semantics - datatypes and "identifies" vs "denotes" - ISSUE-145 (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-10-28)
5. RDF Semantics - datatypes and "identifies" vs "denotes" - ISSUE-145 (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-10-28)
6. Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159) (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-10-24)
7. Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159) (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-10-22)
8. Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159) (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-10-21)
9. Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159) (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-21)
10. Fwd: Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159) (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-21)
11. Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159) (from david@dbooth.org on 2013-10-21)
12. Fwd: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159) (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-16)
13. Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159) (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-16)
14. Re: RDF Semantics - Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-10-03)
15. Re: RDF Semantics - Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-10-03)
16. Re: RDF Semantics - Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2013-10-03)
17. Re: RDF Semantics - Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-10-03)
18. Re: RDF Semantics - Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-02)
19. RDF-ISSUE-145: Identify vs. Denote distinction is not helpful [RDF Semantics] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-10-02)

Related notes:

Display change log