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

Re: what RDF is not (was ...)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:03:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200201041703.MAA13511@markbaker.ca>
To: msabin@interx.com (Miles Sabin)
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Mark Baker wrote,
> > To you and everybody else, that URI should be treated as opaque.  
> > You shouldn't be assuming anything about the structure I may or may 
> > not have designed into it.  I assert that it identifies every 
> > segments in your line, and nothing you can do can change that.  Nah 
> > nah nah! 8-)
> 
> Umm ... so remind me of the point of this semantic web thingy then?
> Wasn't it supposed to have something to do with communication?

Sure, and communication starts with identifying things to communicate
about.  Once you've got that part figured out, then you start saying
things about those things.

They should be opaque precisely because communication is important.
If you start assuming that my structure means one thing, and somebody
else assumes it means something else, then we're all in trouble.
Please let me be explicit about the relationships between my resources.

BTW, here's Tim's comments on URI opacity;

http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html#opaque

> BTW, in _my_ private, opaque, incommunicable lexicon "Nah nah nah! 
> 8-)" translates as "I lose :-(". You don't like my convention?
> Tough ;-)

8-)

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 12:03:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT