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

Re: URI etymology

From: Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:03:13 +0300 (EEST)
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.30.0106151158560.12636-100000@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

>> In the case of documents defining namespaces, there might be
>> more than one, each with their own RDF descriptions. [...]
>
>Once again, this is no problem, unless you somehow believe that what
>you get back from a namespace upon dereferening it is the "one true
>definition" of the terms in that namespace; utter nonsense.

That is my problem, yes. I seem to think that URIs should only identify a
single resource, as it's a lot more difficult to deal with URIs if they
don't. Plus, it's not in accordance with the original definition of URIs.
The URI-to-resource mapping is designed to be one-to-many, with a preference
towards one-to-one. But I'll stop my pedantry now, before it gets ot of
hand. ;)

Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy, mailto:decoy@iki.fi, gsm: +358-50-5756111
student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 05:03:17 GMT

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