On Jul 3, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> The latter. The normalization depends on the schema. There are lots
> of schemas and there will be more. So doing so would mean that
> developers would have to update their RDF software each time a new
> schema was approved.
>
> you mean "scheme" (or "URI scheme")
Yes, thanks.
>
>
> If we determine that two IRs are the same if asking the WEB about
> them always (would) return the same representation, then because you
> can't ask the web about these other than by http (that's my
> assumption) and http treats them the same, they could be inferred to
> be the same (by reading the http protocol).
>
> *If*... yes. But we haven't been able to get anywhere close to such
> a strong statement about IRs. This is a classic extensional view,
> something that doesn't follow from anything that's generally agreed
> about IRs (because there is nothing agreed about IRs except that
> they don't have physical properties). An intentional view (or is it
> intensional?) could also be adopted, where two IRs could be
> distinguished by, say, the process that generated their
> representations, even if the representations (and all other HTTP
> responses) were completely identical.
The point is that in this case they are the same responses by
definition, because it is the same server responding to the same (from
its point of view) message. It's not possible that there is some
different process that happens to be responding the same way.
-Alan
ps. "s"