I don't see what this has to do with the semantic web
> > > > (apart from it
> > > > being part of the web).
> > >
> > > Because most folks think that a URI denotes what they get
> > > when they dereference it, and that is not necessarily what
> > > it actually denotes to a reasoning engine. Yet if they
> > > start making statements about what they got, using the
> > > name of "where" they got it, then they introduce noise
> > > into the SW.
> > >
> > > If I have a URI that denotes the city of Paris, and someone
> > > dereferences it and gets a representation that is a photo
> > > of Paris, and they say "Paris is out of focus" when they
> > > really meant to say, "The photographic representation of Paris
> > > I got is out of focus" then the SW becomes a repository for
> > > garbage, not knowledge.
> >
> > I don't quite get what you want to say.
> >
> > Suppose i retrieve a picture from a URL1, which according to my
> > previous knowledge shows a cat and you assert in some
> > semantic web URL1 --rdf:type--> "dog"
> > Can you tell what conclusion i should make in your semantic web?
>
> That representations are not a reliable basis for making
> statements about resources (at present).
...a statement which brings me back to Jon's interjection:
I don't see in which respect this is a specifics of the semantic web
(apart from it being a part of the web)....
rs
|