Difference between revisions of "Unique Name Assumption Comment 1"
imported>Ihonevigefa |
imported>Denny m (Reverted edits by Ihonevigefa (Talk); changed back to last version by Denny) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
{{Comment| | {{Comment| | ||
On=Unique Name Assumption| | On=Unique Name Assumption| | ||
| Line 13: | Line 12: | ||
Language=English| | Language=English| | ||
Number=1}} | Number=1}} | ||
| − | + | <noinclude>[[Category:Todo]]</noinclude> | |
Latest revision as of 01:27, 19 December 2010
|
| Unique Name Assumption |
|
Benedikt Linse, 5 November 2007 10:21 CET
Hi Denny! Nice little essay. I aggree that the unique name assumption would not be a good choice for the semantic web, since we would all have to agree on a common vocabulary for everything before we could even start putting semantic information on the web.
However, I do not understand why inverse functional properties would break with the unique name assumption. In foaf persons are identified with the hash value of their email addresses. With the unique name assumption, we would not be allowed to use two different URIs for the same person. Hence we would not need inverse functional properties and the problem would not occur in the first place.
Greetings,
Ben
However, I do not understand why inverse functional properties would break with the unique name assumption. In foaf persons are identified with the hash value of their email addresses. With the unique name assumption, we would not be allowed to use two different URIs for the same person. Hence we would not need inverse functional properties and the problem would not occur in the first place.
Greetings,
Ben
occur in the first place.Greetings,
Ben +
