DanC: spent several days trying to parse RDF in perl in order to use Palm::Datebook; losing... looking into python palm tools now
danbri_: (side effect of spending too long in a philosophy department...)
bijan: Hmm. I agree with some of the sentiment, but balk at some of the details (naturally) :) One issue is whether RDF (or the Web) is written/specified/what have you in a formal language? In other words, are URIs to be names in a formal language?
bijan: If so, we might well expect them to have clear properties. One factor in the current confusions is that URI as names haven't be (well) specified.
bijan: I've also thought (and tried to explain to Ken) that the "URI resolvability" debates suffer from a lack of understanding of definite descriptions vs. proper names.
bijan: "All of which is a grumpy way of saying that there is no merit whatsoever
bijan: All of which is a grumpy way of saying that there is no merit whatsoever
bijan: ...in arguing about whether all objects are 'in principle' (which principle?) URI nameable, since we have (and I claim will never have) a clean account of naming." (Sorry for the stutter.)
bijan: Well, there does seem to be some sense, Dan, e.g., if there are more objects than URIs, that seems to settle the issue ;)
danbri_: And more pinheads than angels...? Are URIs countable? Can a URI name multiple objects (at different times in its life?) blah blah...
bijan: My guess is that since URIs are finite strings out of a finite alphabet that they're countable.
bijan: Some of these things aren't facts to be determined but decisions to make.
bijan: Hmm. I agree with some of the sentiment, but balk at some of the details (naturally) :) One issue is whether RDF (or the Web) is written/specified/what have you in a formal language? In other words, are URIs to be names in a formal language?
bijan: If so, we might well expect them to have clear properties. One factor in the current confusions is that URI as names haven't be (well) specified.
bijan: I've also thought (and tried to explain to Ken) that the "URI resolvability" debates suffer from a lack of understanding of definite descriptions vs. proper names.
bijan: "All of which is a grumpy way of saying that there is no merit whatsoever
bijan: All of which is a grumpy way of saying that there is no merit whatsoever
bijan: ...in arguing about whether all objects are 'in principle' (which principle?) URI nameable, since we have (and I claim will never have) a clean account of naming." (Sorry for the stutter.)
bijan: Well, there does seem to be some sense, Dan, e.g., if there are more objects than URIs, that seems to settle the issue ;)
danbri_: And more pinheads than angels...? Are URIs countable? Can a URI name multiple objects (at different times in its life?) blah blah...
bijan: My guess is that since URIs are finite strings out of a finite alphabet that they're countable.
bijan: Some of these things aren't facts to be determined but decisions to make.
danbri_: SKICal - Structured Knowledge Initiative
DanC: found it while looking for HTTP server code in perl (to wrap around Palm::Datebook, making it into an RDF agent)
danbri_: An national initiative in the UK, which shares many aspirations with the Semantic Web.
AaronSw: with Philip Greenspun
AaronSw: I thought of the Semantic Web while reading this
AaronSw: Paperless courts, semantic information on court cases, etc.
AaronSw: I thought of the Semantic Web while reading this
AaronSw: Paperless courts, semantic information on court cases, etc.