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

RE: universal languages

From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:46:11 -0000
Message-ID: <B6F03FDBA149CA41B6E9EB8A329EB12D019199@vault.melandra.net>
To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
[...]
> > >"Boston" is not
> > >a URI, and neither is "4,367".
> 
> Your name, "Boston" and "4,367"  each have an unlimited 
> number of URIs e.g.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Boston
> 
> This URI references a collection of 7,200,000 other URIs each of which
> reference a resource that at least at one time contained the 
> term "Boston"

Yes, but none of those URIs are representations of "Boston".  Instead, they
represent results of searches about Boston, people who live in or have
visited Boston, historical events... none of those URIs capture "essence of
Boston".  And there's another catch: Are we talking about Boston the place
(which one? the one in England? the crater on the Moon?), the string
B-o-s-t-o-n, or something else completely?  "string:Boston" (or
"data:<whatever-random-sequence-of-junk-would-decode-to-the-string>") would
make at least part of that clearer, and such a system would remove most of
my reservations about everything being a URI.  There's a conceptual
difference between the integer 4367 and any of the results of
http://www.google.com/search?q=4367 that requires some magic to represent,
whether we use URIs (integer:4367) or an alternative mechanism.

		- Peter
Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2001 13:46:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT