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

Re: does RDF require understanding all 82 URI schemes?

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:20:44 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20010213121815.03c511e0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "David Megginson" <david@megginson.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 02:09 01/02/13 +0000, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
> > > > <#x>
> > > >   daml:equivalentTo
> > > >   http://www.megginson.com/battles.rdf#jutland
> >
> > I already answered this one privately -- this solution won't scale,
> > because it requires you to retrieve a resource to find the aliased
> > identifier [...] it's not a practical alternative to sharing the same
> > identifier.
>
>Well, actually that depends on what you are doing. If the Schema above is
>directly adjacent to your SW system, and your system only groks the
>"Megginson-ised" URI, then it can convert from one to t'other. Therefore,
>it is a practical alternative in some closed (and semi-closed) world RDF
>systems. It wouldn't scale on the WWW, because as you say, there could be
>thousands of links by the time you get to the third level... Seth Russell
>wrote something a while ago about the Semantic Web being fractal in origin
>that you might want to research (or if you are lucky he might pipe up on).

I'm not sure it's possible to say that it won't scale on the WWW.
I think it very much depends on how many different places invent
identifiers for the same thing independently,..., i.e. on how
fractal the whole thing will be.


Regards,    Martin.
Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 23:05:11 GMT

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