W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

RE: silly question about rdf:about

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 11:26:16 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020409112338.032df270@joy.songbird.com>
To: "Graham Moore" <gdm@empolis.co.uk>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
At 05:01 PM 4/8/02 +0100, Graham Moore wrote:
>We should not confuse the assignment of an identity with the posibility 
>that the identity contains information that could lead to some resolution 
>to an abstract entity within a computer system. These two identities serve 
>the same purpose
>
>urn:person:gdm
>
>urn:ksfskjgjsj:kjsjkfskfks
>
>a suitable resolution function MAY resolve this to an entity within a 
>computer system or this may be the identity for just some thing. But both 
>provide a handle by which I can now talk about the thing in my model.

I have some sympathy with this view, BUT consider also this comment from 
Tim Berners-Lee:
[[[
[me:]
 > I submit that one architectural benefit of the IETF DDDS work [1] is that
 > it allows separation of naming authority concerns from URI dereferencing
 > concerns,

[TBL:]
You can't separate those concerns.   When you reinvent a system
of delegation of ownership of URI space, then you have to make a
lookup system because you will want to be able to look up definitive
information about the names. the lookup system will have to mirror
the delegation system in some way, because it has to be definitive -
it has to be controlled at each point by the relevant authority.  So
you end up reinventing DNS.  In many cases, the problem is a social
one you wanted to fix anyway, such as the lack of persistence
of domain names or server's reuse of URIs.
]]]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Feb/0180.html

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 9 April 2002 08:39:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:53 GMT