Re: InverseFunctional properties are the new URI?

> 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/