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

Re: What if an URI also is a URL

From: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <rbg@talis.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:28:00 +0200
Message-ID: <46D72850.2060107@talis.com>
To: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
CC: wangxiao@musc.edu, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Oskar Welzl wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 30.08.2007, 11:12 +0100 schrieb Xiaoshu Wang:
>> Oskar Welzl wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Personally, I don't think it is a pity.  Rather I think it is good in 
>> that way.  WebArch should not enforce what people can or cannot say.  
>> But as person, we can choose what we agree and what we don't.  In the 
>> web, we agree by sharing, by importing your statements.  So, what is 
>> true (or in the sense of popular belief) are shared by a large 
>> community.  What is not true (or not popular) is left to "die" or 
>> continue live in isolate. What we need to educate ourselves and others 
>> are how to best convey our meaning clearly so that we won't be left alone.
> Sure, that's how it works in practise.
> But because of the ambiguity of URIs (which, in fact, is an 1:n relation
> URI:information resources), the "network effect" doesn't kick in as
> easily as one would expect. If best practise guidelines where strict
> enough or even existent, people might use a certain URI consistently
> across the web. Statements could easily be collected to add information
> about the resource. On the other hand, if I made a statement, I could be
> sure it's well understood by others.
> The way it is, even though I can collect as much statements about a URI
> as I find, I'd better not mix statements from independent sources all to
> carelessly: The might apply to completely different information
> resources and leave me with unexpected results. Vice versa, I have to
> expect my own statements get misinterpreted.
No, in RDF there as n:1 relation from URIs to Resources, you may have
different names for the same resources but URIs unambiguously refer to a
particular resource.  Since the classes foaf:Agent and a foaf:Document
are disjoint, the following two graphs

<urn:foo> <foaf:mbox> <mailto:foo@example.org>.


[ <foaf:homepage> <urn:foo>]

do not make different usage of the URI "urn:foo", they contradict each
other and at least one of the two graphs is wrong.

But talking about standards, why is this discussion on a list which has
been replaced by semantic-web@w3.org?


Reto Bachmann-Gmür
Talis Information Limited

Book your free place now at Talis Insight 2007 www.talis.com/insight
Find out more about Talis at www.talis.com
Shared InovationTM
Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd.
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2007 20:28:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:00 UTC