W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > November 2006

Re: "Hash URIs" and content negotiation

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:28:10 -0500
Message-Id: <62A9E243-8DF6-4908-B362-E0B7F9205BC2@gmail.com>
Cc: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>, danbri@danbri.org, "Richard Cyganiak" <richard@cyganiak.de>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: "Pius A. Uzamere II" <pius@alum.mit.edu>


On Nov 8, 2006, at 11:08 AM, Pius A. Uzamere II wrote:

> I think that one could argue that either way.  The way I see it,  
> the resource should be decoupled from its representation.  Here,  
> the resource is the content of the document, while the  
> representation is the language in which it is written.  In the real  
> world, though, it depends on the domain.
>
> If you're building a document management system, in which you are  
> representing each physically printed document as a resource, you  
> could argue that it's semantically incorrect to demote various  
> translations from resources to representations, and I'd agree with  
> you.
>
> If, on the other hand, you have online user profiles that you are  
> dynamically translating to different formats (e.g. RDF, XHTML, and  
> different language versions thereof), it's probably more correct to  
> treat the profile as the resource and the translations as the  
> representations.

The problem is that I don't mint URIs for my personal use. I build  
them so that other's can use them (hopefully in ways that I didn't  
expect). If I am diligent in naming different things by different  
names then someone who wants to group those into a single concept  
can. If I group different things into a different name, each person  
who can figure out how to untangle them(when that is even possible)  
will do so in a different way.

-Alan
Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2006 16:28:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:12 GMT