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

Re: InverseFunctional properties are the new URI?

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 16:50:10 -0400
Message-Id: <200407292050.i6TKoAAt014335@roke.hawke.org>
To: Simon Price <simon.price@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org


> Actually, I think I'll disagree with myself before anyone else does. 
> Taking Dan's point, the ordering could well be IFP > no URI/IFP > URI 
> because the URI is in no way a property of the described object whereas 
> all other properties are.

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/
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 16:46:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:14:58 UTC