W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Valid representations, canonical representations, and what th e SW needs from the Web...

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:09:09 -0600
Message-ID: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE97@hq1.pcmail.ingr.com>
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

Perhaps where one sees resource, if one substitutes 
"virtual signified", it is easier to understand. 
I don't think it changes one wit the way the 
system works.  On the other hand, if the problem 
here is conflicting models, it is difficult to 
conceive of the semantic web and the traditional 
web as the 'same' system; they appear to be 
systems that share signficators and indirectly, 
signifieds.

For that to work in the normative RFCs, the 
URI RFC needs to be syntax only, then other 
RFCs or specificationd deal with the affective 
model.

len


From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org]

If we back off that assumption and allow there to be multiple ways for
a URI to point to things, without unduly blessing one over all others,
we're okay.  And this mess becomes an RDF issue not a web architecture
issue.  RDF works fine if it just becomes explicit about which way or
ways each URI is being used.  All we need from webarch is to have them
not pester us too much about using URIs to point to different things
in different ways.
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 10:10:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:15 GMT