- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 18:44:55 -0700
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- CC: www-tag@w3.org
Champion, Mike wrote: > >... >><p>The <a href="http://www.w3.org">W3C</a> is an important <a >>href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=organization&r=67">or >>ganization</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com">Google</a> is an >>important service. >></p> > > > I wouldn't, but I'm not a machine :-) A machine that doesn't understand the > English meaning of the sentence can't know if it refers to the W3C itself or > the W3C website. That's why RDF exists. So that we can construct sentences that machines understand! Machines don't know anything until we tell them things ANYHOW. If you tell them it represents a building and I tell them it represents a document then they get confused. But how does "urn:" or "now:" help? If you tell them a "now:" URI is a cat and I tell them it is a dog they are just as confused! Plus, we can use RDF assertions to implement the model that Micah describes. Existing web pages can represent documents. They can point (using RDF) to other HTTP resources that represent concepts (described in RDF). You have the same benefits of the pairing of documents and concepts, except they live in the same namespace and you can merge them into one resource in those cases where it isn't confusing. So yes, for any particular URI, we should all get together and agree on what it means (to whatever extent that is possible). But not for a particular *syntax* of URIs. As Jonathon Borden points out, the computers don't care about the syntax of URIs unless we tell them to. And in lots of contexts, Tim B-L advocates URI opacity himself. Shhh. If you don't tell computers that using an HTTP URI for a dog is confusing, and I don't tell them, then they won't know. It really is only confusing to human beings. Paul Prescod
Received on Sunday, 6 October 2002 21:45:30 UTC