W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2003

Re: URI for language identifiers

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 02:50:11 -0500
To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen@acm.org>
Cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030402075011.GH11006@tux.w3.org>

* Jan Algermissen <algermissen@acm.org> [2003-04-02 09:45+0200]
> 
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > 
> > But if the URI denotes two things, how do you differentiate
> > between statements made about one versus the other?
> 
> The URI does not denote two things. There are just two kinds of properties
> on topics that use URIs as values. The semantics of the properties are
> different.
> 
> The whole thing is different because in topic maps, you have an unlimited
> number of possibilities to identify what a given topic represents.
> 
> > It comes down to whether there is one web or many. Most folks
> > want there to be one web, not e.g. a REST Web and a Semantic
> > Web. In order for the Semantic Web to be "part of" the one
> > web, we need to be able to refer to anything whatsoever using
> > URIs, and that includes abstract concepts and other non-web
> > accessible resources.
> > 
> > Now some, including TimBL, would prefer to make a key distinction
> > between URIs and URIrefs, where URIs only denote web-accessible
> > resources, and URIrefs must be used to denote non-web accessible
> > resources. Others, including myself, see no need for such a
> > distinction.
> 
> This is helpful information to me, thanks.

But inaccurate. I think Patrick's comments relate only to the TimBL view of
http:// and https:// URIs, and perhaps specified others, such as gopher://.

I've never seen TimBL him claim that all URI schemes are constrained to 
name only electronic documents. There are urn:isbn: URIs, and 
suchlike, for example.

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 02:50:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:58 GMT