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

Re: What to do about namespace derived URI refs... (long)

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 21:06:30 +0100
Message-ID: <03e901c0eec4$318d04e0$60dd93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
> [1] http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm
> [2] http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm#Truth

O.K., TimBL has actually argued against using URLs as in [1] for
concepts, because they do represent retrievable entities according to
the HTTP specification. However, you *can't* say that about [2]
because it's a URI reference, and they just give a representation of
something that is defined in that URI based upon the content. It is a
part or view of the concept to which you are referring to. The "upon
the content" bit is annoying, and hence Jonathan Borden's nice little
proposal.

So I'll give a "don't care" on the usage of [1], and an all O.K. on
the usage of [2]. Note that:-

[[[
The fragment identifier on an RDF (or N3) document identifies not a
part of the document, but whatever thing, abstract or concrete,
animate or innanimate, the document describes as having that
identifier.
]]] - http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Fragment

Which will hopefully be encoded in the MIME type specification for
RDF.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 16:06:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:49 GMT