Re: URI Comparisons: RFC 2616 vs. RDF

On 1/19/11 11:27 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Kingsley Idehen 
> <kidehen@openlinksw.com <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 1/19/11 10:59 AM, Nathan wrote:
>>     htTp://lists.W3.org/Archives/Public/public-lod/2011Jan/ -
>>     Personally I'd hope that any statements made using these URIs
>>     (asserted by man or machine) would remain valid regardless of the
>>     (incorrect?-)casing. 
>     Okay for Data Source Address Ref. (URL), no good for Entity (Data
>     Item or Data Object) Name Ref., bar system specific handling via
>     IFP property or owl:sameAs :-)
>
>
> Kingsley, same for you as Nathan. To what specification do you refer 
> to for the definitions and behavior of:
>  - "Data source address ref"
>  - Entity
>  - Statement.
>
> -Alan

Alan,

My response is purely about managing Identifiers that are used as 
functional unambiguous Name or Address References. Not quoting a W3C 
spec. Basically, expressing a view based on my understanding of what's 
practical.

A system (e.g. a database or client app.) can (should) make a decision 
about how it handles resolvable Identifiers when used as Name or Address 
references.

Kingsley
>
>
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Kingsley Idehen	
>     President&  CEO
>     OpenLink Software
>     Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>     Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen  <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen