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 GMT

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