- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:39:03 -0700
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, "Bill de hOra" <dehora@eircom.net>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
> "The meaning of a URI(ref) as intended by its authority is defined by the > set of assertions obtained when the URI is referenced. Do you mean "dereferenced"? > When the media type of such a representation is: application/rdf+xml, then > the meaning of the represented URI is given by the graph as per the RDF > model theory." While this is one *possible* scenario that could occur, there are many other ways that meaning can be associated with a URI. It's debatable whether this particular approach ever stands a chance of succeeding. I strongly recommend that TAG avoid endorsing any particular approach to associating meaning with URIs. I suggest sticking with the simple affirmation that URIs *do* have meaning. Assignation of meaning to symbols is a complex and fluid social process (in which ownership of a DNS server can play a big part, of course). The Web Architecture doesn't need to codify this process, and risks looking foolish by trying.
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 16:39:41 UTC