Le jeudi, 2 oct 2003, à 09:53 America/Montreal, Patrick Stickler a écrit : So what? The denotation of a URI has nothing to do with what > representations might be available via HTTP or any other protocol. agreed. > Whether there is or is not anything "at the end of it" has no > affect on reasoners using that URI. it could have. > That's normal life on the SW. Agent's beware. utopia. > Then it's not the Semantic Web! It's just some closed expert system > operating in a bubble. no you can have an URI as a generic marker and deferenceable object about this marker. It will still be the semantic Web. > Err... and so different sources will assert different things about > particular resources, and one can choose which sources they trust > and which they don't. This is precisely how the SW works. no problem with that. I even encourage that. I think you haven't understood. > One can refer to Merriam Webster/"dog" or Collins/"dog" etc. > and those are distinct identifiers, specific to a given dictionary > (or even edition of a dictionary). Perhaps they denote the same thing, > but they also may have descriptions that differ or even conflict. agreed. > The SW cannot and will not be a closed, controlled space. And > because it will grow and change rapidly and in unexpected ways, > the SW architecture must be as flexible and scalable as the SW > will be dynamic -- just as the Web architecture is, which is why > the Web is such a success. agreed. You missed the point. think about wildcard DNS, spam, trademarks and patents, etc... and apply to the creativity of humans with regards to the Semantic Web.Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 11:23:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:02 GMT