Graham Klyne wrote: > I think the assumption that the URI denotes a specific resource is somewhat > empty if one has no other knowledge about the resource thus denoted. As > Pat pointed out, in this situation you can do no more than infer that such > a resource exists. If I use that resource twice, in one case I'd expect to use the same resource twice, in the other, I could not have that expectation. > > > o provenance: when a source of rdf states some properties about > > a resource named by a URI it is making assertions that the > > resource named by that URI has those properties. when a source > > of rdf states properties about a variable, it is making no > > assertions about the name of that resource. > > The detailed form of the argument here depends a bit on whether one assumes > that URIs:resources are 1:1, or if several URIs can identify the same > resource. But either way I assert that two URIs can ultimately refer to > the same thing in the domain of interpretation. Thus, assertions about a > resource named by a uniquely-generated URI MAY be referring to a resource > that is elsewhere known by a specified URI. This seems to be the same as > information that one has about a resource identified by a variable. A sends signed rdf containing anon node to B. It matters whether A or B generates the URI. If B generates it, A has not signed that name->resource mapping. BrianReceived on Monday, 23 July 2001 18:33:53 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:50 UTC