W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: A use case for anon nodes - action from telecon

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:23:19 -0500
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <20010717012321.BNTO23117.femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com@localhost>
On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 02:23  PM, Brian McBride wrote:

> (1) In the seller advert it would appear that the seller is 
> only advertising a
> single specific (but under-specified) service, #anon12345 or 
> whatever, which
> would be hard to distinguish from an actual service instance 
> like #service42.

Why would you want to distinguish between the two? And I see 
nothing about a URI that licenses you to assume that there is 
only such thing.

> (2) Similarly in the buyer advert instead of describing a 
> template, giving the
> service a URI would make it appear that I am looking for a 
> specific service with
> that URI.

Umm, aren't you? What's the difference? In both you're looking 
for something with these properties.

> This is clearly similar to DanC's book buying example.

Yes, the fact that there is so much confusion about the 
semantics of URIs and anonymous nodes makes it extremely clear 
that we must clarify this kind of thing immediately.

--
       "Aaron Swartz"      |              The Semantic Web
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |        i'm working to make it happen
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 21:23:33 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:11 EDT