RE: silly question about rdf:about

Joshua Allen wrote,
> I agree with Uche on this one -- an http:// URI identifies a 
> document, and not a car.  However, I can live with the other 
> proposals that people have put forward (Sean's technique of adding 
> an extra node works well). The most important thing to me, by far, 
> is just to have a decision and get rid of the uncertainty.  I wish 
> someone would just declare that "this is how URI's for identity 
> work, and all other ways are discouraged."

I like Seans technique too ... but, note that this doesn't eliminate
the ambiguity in the reference of the _URI_. Rather, it sidesteps the
problem by constructing a new referring term (URI+triples) which is
unambiguous (or, at least, less ambiguous) than the bare URI.

Cheers,


Miles