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

Re: Solutions to the Identification Problem, was Re: URIs / URLs

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:24:32 +0100
Message-ID: <021d01c0c36d$303f99e0$02d993c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "RDF Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> 3.  We can, of course, use a non-resolvable URI scheme
> or make up a new one (as I'm guilty of doing myself).

I don't happen to think that making new URI schemes should be taboo: a
good mark is "can this particular resource be identified to my level
of satisfaction by any other URI space?". If not, create a new one for
it; I don't see the problem.

As for what URI to use for identifying non network retrievable
entities, does it matter? I mean theoretically it matters a great
deal, but realistically one could use any URI as long as it suits a
particular system. I like your three choices, but I would hardly label
them as "solutions"... rather they are choices that we have to put up
with for now - i.e. pick the one with the least disadvantages.

> If it served up text/rdf defined the right way, the two
> denotations could happen, at the moment, to be identical.

Erm... how many processors do you know of that derference the RDF
namespace to gain an insight into how RDF works?

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 12:24:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:35 UTC