- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:56:35 -0700
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN" <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com> > From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> > > > I don't see any justification for the claim that > > namespaces are disjoint from HTTP resources. > > Certainly, one of the greatest powers of the Semantic Web is that it > will enable us to be precise about what a certain URI "means" within a > particular context. Using an HTTP URI for a property name is useful > because you can do a GET on it, but not all HTTP URIs are > dereferencable, so a processor would need to be told that a URI is > vancable (or it could just vance upon it and hope that there's > something there, but explicitly stating that an HTTP URI references > some piece of code is useful). To me when a person makes up a URI and chooses the HTTP prefix, that *are* saying that it is vancable (dereferencable ... the representation of the resource potentially aquireable by a http get) ... but then that seems to have gotten contorted, conflated, obscured, and confused ... oh well ... Seth's hopes for a simple universe have never been happening .... Seth
Received on Friday, 6 April 2001 12:59:55 UTC