W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > August 2001

RE: QNames, semantics, serialization

From: Lassila Ora (NRC/Boston) <Ora.Lassila@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:19:30 -0500
Message-ID: <B9CFA6CE8FFDD211A1FB0008C7894E460417FFEA@bseis01nok>
To: "'Drew McDermott'" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Drew,

Drew McDermott wrote:
> I believe I am echoing Pat Hayes when I say that I don't understand
> why it is considered desirable, let alone essential, let alone
> *possible*, that there be only one name for each object.  What on
> earth could guarantee such a thing?  Lasers in space that destroy any
> computer found to have a nonofficial URI for an object?
> 
Although I *really really* wouldn't want to contribute to this waaay too
long discussion, I have to say that the issue is that one would like
there only to be one *object* for any *name*, not the other way around
(which you seem to be talking about - and I agree with your comments
there).

That said, I think the possibility outlined earlier that two QNames
accidentally map into one URI is so remote that I would suggest we let
go of this discussion and move onto more productive things :-)

Kind regards,

	- Ora

--
Ora Lassila  mailto:ora.lassila@nokia.com  http://www.lassila.org/
Research Fellow, Nokia Research Center
Chief Scientist, Nokia Venture Partners
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 14:19:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:40 GMT