- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 11:07:44 -0500 (EST)
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider)
- Cc: msabin@interx.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > For example, here's some possible URIs for some transcendentals; > > > > http://numbers.example.org/transcendental/pi > > http://numbers.example.org/transcendental/e > > Sure, but there are only countably many of such URIs, so not all reals can > have such indentifiers. Not being countable means not being able to prescribe a naming structure a priori, that's all. In other (seemingly convoluted) words; Not all real numbers have URIs, but any real number can have a URI. (because "any" implies that identity has been determined) Hmm, I can tell below that are you making an invalid assumption. You are assuming that we're restricted to identifying reals with a URI structure such as; http://math.org/number/[put some expansion of number here] That's not the case at all. [snip] > This real number is different from all the real numbers represented by > URIs. Ok, so I'll identify it as; http://example.org/numbers/real/peters-example-real MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 4 January 2002 11:07:15 UTC