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

RE: Disambiguation; keeping the "U" in "URI"

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:56:36 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C104F05BCD@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <msabin@interx.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Actually, I had been mis-reading.  The solution I agree with is that

The anonymous (or named if you want) node:
[http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html dc:Creator]
Identifies the person.

The node:
[http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html]
Identifies the page.

This is how RDF works anyway.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Miles Sabin [mailto:msabin@interx.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:06 PM
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> 
> Danny Ayers wrote,
> > if I state that
> >
> > http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html dc:Creator
> > http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html
> >
> > then it can inferred that one of these is a person or organisation
> > and the other something with intellectual content. No conflict.
> 
> Joshua Allen wrote,
> > I like this solution.
> 
> Now I'm completely confused, because Danny's solution only makes
> sense,
> 
> * If URIs can be ambiguous (ie. we have two occurrences of the same
>   URI in his example, each with a different referent).
> 
> * If the use context of a URI can resolve ambiguity in its referent
>   (ie. in the subject role of dc:Creator, ambiguity is resolved in
>   favour of the person, in the object role, in favour of the
>   document).
> 
> But these are precisely the contentions I've been making throughout
> these threads, and which you appeared to be objecting to so
> vehemently.
> 
> Has peace broken out? Or were/are we talking at cross purposes?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Miles
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 17:56:40 GMT

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