RE: flogging a dead horse

OK. Shame on me for responding too quickly.

Technically, my first response was correct. Your example did not really
demonstrate any co-denotation of a URI, so I presumed you were trying
to solve a non-problem.

The real problem that seems to be alluded to in your initial example
is when users *erroneously* presume that the URI would identify a
document, because they GET a document in their browser, rather than
some other resource. And I don't see how that can be addressed by
any technical solution. It's a matter of education.

Looking past the premise of your document, the "practices" you suggest,
for utilizing typical server behavior to maintain a distinction between
URIs for concepts and URIs for documents about the concept,
certainly seem reasonable and could constitute the foundation for
a general naming methodology.

Cheers,

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere) 
> Sent: 14 November, 2004 18:42
> To: 'ext Miles, AJ (Alistair)'; 'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'
> Subject: RE: flogging a dead horse
> 
> 
> 
> I got as far as the first few paragraphs:
> 
> [
> If you use an HTTP URI as an identifier for something other 
> than a web document (such as an abstract concept) then you 
> can run into problems. The problems arise when there just 
> happens to be a web document at the end of that same URI, 
> which you find when you plug that URI into the address bar of 
> your favourite browser.
> 
> The problem is that you can have one URI identifying two 
> distinct things. Obviously a unique identifier isn't much 
> good if it doesn't uniquely identify anything. 
> ]
> 
> But then stopped, because it seems your fundamental premise is false.
> 
> If you have a URI that identifies a concept, and 
> dereferencing that URI in a 
> browser results in some web page displayed in that browser, 
> that does not
> mean that the URI has been used to identify two things, the 
> concept and
> the web page (document).
> 
> Per your example, the URI identifies the concept, and the web 
> page is merely
> a representation of that concept, and if one wishes to refer 
> distinctly
> to the document (representation), one must use a distinct URI 
> from that
> identifying the concept.
> 
> There is no problem there.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of ext Miles, AJ
> > (Alistair)
> > Sent: 14 November, 2004 04:09
> > To: 'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'
> > Subject: flogging a dead horse
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I know I don't post here much, but I had some thoughts re the 
> > 'identity
> > crisis' and I wrote them up mostly because it's 1am and I 
> > wanted to stop
> > thinking about it and my girlfriend's gone to Disneyland 
> > Paris without me.  
> > 
> > Read at leisure (i.e. make sure you're sitting down):
> > 
> > http://esw.w3.org/topic/SkosDev/IdentityCrisis
> > 
> > Al.
> > 
> > ---
> > Alistair Miles
> > Research Associate
> > CCLRC - Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> > Building R1 Room 1.60
> > Fermi Avenue
> > Chilton
> > Didcot
> > Oxfordshire OX11 0QX
> > United Kingdom
> > Email:        a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk
> > Tel: +44 (0)1235 445440
> > 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Sunday, 14 November 2004 16:50:41 UTC