W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2001

Re: URIs / URLs

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 09:56:35 -0700
Message-ID: <007601c0beba$8bdec1c0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT