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

RE: web proper names

From: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:57:10 +0100
To: "'Phil Dawes'" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>, "'David Menendez'" <zednenem@psualum.com>
Cc: "'Daniel O'Connor'" <daniel.oconnor@gmail.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000f01c49fd2$23b54f90$0201a8c0@Lugh>

>  > On the other hand, if we want to talk about a particular 
> HTML document  > we obtained by dereferencing 
> <http://www.cnn.com/>, then we need to say  > > something like this:
> 
>  >     [ a ex:HTMLDocument ] ex:obtainedFrom "http://www.cnn.com/".
>  > 
>  > The fun part[1] is that the document is itself a resource 
> and could be  > given its own URI (perhaps 
> <http://example.com/pagesIveDownloaded/12345>
>  > or 
> <cid:123456@example.com>).
>  > 
> 
> But note that this is not special to the web - it's no 
> different to having a URI that identifies Jon Hanna on 20th 
> Sep (before he grows his hair and wairs mostly yellow).  
> (perhaps http://www.hackcraft.net/jon/on/20040920)

Well yes, I think that this is the point in saying you can have a URI
for a representation or "conceptual document" or anything that is
special to the web and remain compatible with the URIs-identify-anything
view. (I've been jokingly quoting Freud on cigars here, I'll stop though
as it wasn't even that funny  the first time) There are no valid
counter-examples against the URIs-identify-anything view. The URI-space
is large, it contains multiitudes.

(P.S. Just to be awkward, since I'm ill and don't really feel like
rubbing a sharp blade across my skin or doing laundry
http://www.hackcraft.net/jon/on/20040920 has hair and isn't wearing
black)
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 11:57:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:09 GMT