- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:17:48 +0000
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
At 10:02 PM 1/22/03 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >One *can* introduce a new system with a different design >and argue its merits. Sandro has designed an alternative >system http://www.w3.org/2002/12/rdf-identifiers/ >which seems consistent and I haven't finished thinking >about - there are things I like about it and things I don't. >But it does address all the questions, I think. FWIW, I think Sandro's proposal is consistent with the current state of RDF specification, and other views of URIs that have been expressed here, except maybe the view that http: URIs (without fragments) should always denote documents (I hope I don't misinterpret). My point of divergence with that proposal is the suggestion it should be part of the RDF core, because I don't see the necessity for it to be there. The formal semantics for RDF does tell us one thing, though: in a given interpretation of an RDF graph (document, or collection of documents considered together), a given URI must always denote the same single thing. So we can't have a graph in which a URI sometimes denotes a car and elsewhere simultaneously denotes a picture. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 06:42:17 UTC