> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jon Hanna [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 15 January, 2003 12:46
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: rdfs:isDefinedBy revisited
>
>
> > I'd say that the RDFS *contains* or *includes* a representation
> > of a DCMI namespace, or XML namespace, but that it says a whole
> > lot more that is not embodied in the namespace itself, since
> > the namespace is simply a set of names and a representation
> > would not embody more than an enumeration of those names, in
> > some fashion.
>
> Inevitably representations will have both omissions and
> additions to what
> would be contained in some sort of Platonic perfect representation.
>
> Think of a physical textual representation of the word "one". The
> representation will inevitably contain information that is
> nothing to do
> with the word, such as the typeface or handwriting-style,
> colour etc. and
> lack some information that could be useful such as it's
> meaning, or that it
> is homophonic with "won" rather than with "own". It's still a
> reasonable
> representation.
Well, of course different folks will draw the line in different
places (and in fact, this is a problem with REST, in that the
concept of "representation" is underspecified in this regard).
Still, I wouldn't necessarily consider typographical information
as part of the information conveyed by the representation.
What about a "representation" for the word "one" that also included
"two", "three", ..., "one million", ...
Would you consider that a valid representation for "one"?
Patrick
|