Dan > Ah... I misread your point. Indeed, in the general case, > lots of documents may discuss the same resource, and none > of them is authoritative. If DOC1#T1 and DOC2#T1 both > refer to France, there is no web architecture mechanism > for determining which is authoritative. > OK. But I don't want to have DOC1#T1 *and* DOC2#T1 as two distinct URIs defining France. I want one URI to define France. > The point I was making is there are authoritative descriptions > corresponding to URIs. Whatever whatever http responses > the owner of DOC1#T1 gives are authoritative descriptions > of DOC1#T1. > Sure enough > And yes, things change over time. > I'm glad we agree on that :-) > [...] > >>> It seems very unnatural to me to use anything other than a single >>> static file for the case of an ontology with just a few dozen terms. >>> Maybe a handful of content-negotiated static files. But not more than >>> that. >>> >>> >>> >> Just a few dozen terms, yes. But with semantics not so "static" as you >> would like them to be. geo:Region is not rdfs:subClassOf - The real >> world apologizes for being so messy, changing and unstable :-) . >> > > It's reasonably straightforward to change the contents of a static > file on a web server, no? > > Sure it is. But the point is that I don't want to change the file. I want to publish a new one about the same entities, without deprecating the old one. -- *Bernard Vatant* Knowledge Engineering ----------------------------------------------------** *Mondeca ** *3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com> ---------------------------------------------------- Tel. +33 (0) 871 488 459 Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> Wikipedia user <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Universimmedia>Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 14:59:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:44:54 GMT