W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2004

RE: InverseFunctional properties are the new URI?

From: John Black <JohnBlack@deltek.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 22:25:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CBEA695878CA104ABC6E74C6B176927507BE34@DLTKVMX2.ads.deltek.com>
To: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Damian Steer" <damian.steer@hp.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> From: Graham Klyne
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 1:51 PM
> 
> At 22:26 29/07/04 +0100, Damian Steer wrote:
> >>Why isn't something's URI an IFP property of the thing?   
> TimBL calls
> >>that property log:uri, I think.   For a while, I generalized it
> >>slightly to u:uname [1].
> >>
> >>      -- sandro
> >>
> >>[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/12/uname/
> >
> >"You can always solve a problem by introducing another layer 
> of indirection."
> >
> >So true :-)
> 
> I remember Guha saying something similar when presenting the 
> Reference-by-Description ideas as used in TAP, and then 
> adding that in the 
> case of TAP this reduced the number of URIs that must be 
> globally agreed 
> (for effective exchange of information in an open-ended community of 
> interested parties) by some orders of magnitude, thus could 
> be regarded as 
> a valuable deployment of that old panacea.

Reducing by orders of magnitude the number of URIs needed to identify 
objects is a good thing. But it intensifies the problem of establishing 
global agreement on the references of the URIs of classes and properties.
How is this done? or can it be done at all? Is it any easier to come to a 
global agreement on the extension of a class than on the identity of 
an object? 

John Black
 
> #g
> 
> 
> ------------
> Graham Klyne
> For email:
> http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 2 August 2004 22:25:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:57 UTC