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

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

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:22:52 -0700
Message-ID: <013c01c0eec6$8504e640$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.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.

Sorry I disagree.  [2] does name a retrievalbel resource.  Attempting to
define that away with an analytic defintion does not change the fact of the
matter ... imho, obviously, imho.  Let's say that i put an anchor on that
page and say something about truth there under.  Then let's say somebody
wants to come along and make a comment (not about SethTruth) but about the
way I expressed myself about it on that page.  With your wiggy definition
there would be confusion.

>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.

Well 2 things:

1) Your cited defintion does not appear to apply to my example, because the
fragment is not on a RDF (or N3) document.

2) You cannot wish away (by virture of some definiton which is out of
channel) the fact that http://robustai.net/~seth/index.htm#Truth returns
some sting of bits and that the URL identifies that string of bits.  It
cannot do that and identify my Truth as the same time, without causing an
ambiguity.

Seth Russell
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 16:30:01 GMT

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