RDF is fine with one 'thing' having multiple identifiers, it just hands
the problem up a level to the application to deal with.
For example, the owl:sameAs predicate is used to express that the
subject and object are the same 'thing'. Then the application can infer
that if a owl:sameAs b, and a x y, then b x y.
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 13:00 +0100, Mike Taylor wrote:
> Alexander Johannesen writes:
> > Anyway, I'm suspecting I don't see what the problem seems to be. To
> > create "the best identifier" for things seems a bit of a strange
> > notion to me, but is this based on that there is only (or rather,
> > that you're trying to create) one identifier for any one thing?
> Yes, this is exactly it. RDF things that each concept should have
> exactly one identifier; Topic Maps says its fine to have multiple
> identifiers. That seems to be 99% of the conceptual difference
> between them.
> My position: it seems obvious that one is the CORRECT number of
> identifiers for a thing to have. But since we live in a formal
> world, the Topics Map approach may be more practical.
> In other words, I might end up _advocating_ Topic Maps, but don't
> expect me to _like_ it :-)
> _/|_ ___________________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\ "I think it's too consistently wrong not to be fixable" --
> Phil Baldwin.