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

Re: InverseFunctional properties are the new URI?

From: Damian Steer <damian.steer@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:26:46 +0100
Message-Id: <FE6243EA-E1A5-11D8-98E8-000D932B9016@hp.com>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 29 Jul 2004, at 21:50, Sandro Hawke 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 :-)

Damian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFBCWueAyLCB+mTtykRAlTTAKCLhNnSqUfIpQQ+2cR1wgMBvIhefwCg0D3+
/QRF8/AmC+HXINB+SnvJa9c=
=oE9R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 17:27:41 UTC

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