W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2007

Re: What if an URI also is a URL

From: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:37:58 +0200
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Cc: wangxiao@musc.edu
Message-Id: <1188419878.24867.19.camel@jupiter.hormayrgasse>

Am Dienstag, den 28.08.2007, 12:27 +0100 schrieb Xiaoshu Wang:
> Right, that is the point - to make things unambiguous.  So, for your 
> original question.  It is not a matter of "can or cannot" but "should or 
> should not".

Probably, yes, ist more of "should" than of "can". This is what I'm
trying to find out... good practice. How to be a good semweb citizen.
It's true that you *can* use all sorts of stuff, technically.

> So, sure, you can use "http://www.flikr.com" to refer both the 
> community/service and web page as long as you are willing to take that 
> some machine agent may tell you that the service/community has a colored 
> background and the web page has some female or male members.

I'm not willing to accept this, so I'll have to stick with my original
intention of creating a URI other than http://www.flickr.com for flickr,
the service. Or, more practical at the moment, use
http://oskar.twoday.net/ID/names#thisblog or some similar construct for
my weblog, maybe even provide some machine-readable info about the
website there. (BTW: is there a somewhat popular ontology to describe
websites? like: domain, index page, contact, sitemap,...)

Pity, though, that there hardly seems to be an agreement on how to
handle this issue, so simply by choosing the above URI myself I will not
prevent *others* making statements like 
<#thismail> mail:sender <http://oskar.twoday.net>
when they refer to an update-notification they received from the weblog.

> That's my two cents,

Thank you, it was a good investment ;)


Oskar
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 20:38:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:19 GMT