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

Re: Documents, Cars, Hills, and Valleys

From: Nick Matsakis <matsakis@mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 21:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
cc: RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSX.4.44.0204212113010.6188-100000@artoo.ai.mit.edu>

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Dan Brickley wrote:

> Why make work for ourselves? What worldy benefit is there in coming up
> with criteria for splitting the world into two huge disjoint categories:
> 'things that can be named with http:-uris, and things that can't'?

I don't think that we are talking about asking people making knowledge
bases to split up their conceptual world.  Rather, we are saying that they
should try to use a namespace that minimizes potential conflicts down the
road, and that perhaps "http://" is not a great one in this regard.

We always have to accept the possiblity that there is some unreasonable
person out there that will use all the wrong names for things.  I think
these knowledge bases will be easy to detect.  Our bigger problem will
come when there are *lots of* reasonable people out there who choose an
http: uri to refer to a network accessible resource, and another big group
which uses the same uri to refer to a non-network accessible resource.

I still feel like the different sides are fighting (different) straw men.
Is anyone actually proposing that it is acceptable to use URL of a
person's homepage to name that person in RDF?

Nick Matsakis
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2002 21:21:58 GMT

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