- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:49:18 -0500
- To: "'Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com'" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
I'm not sure it's useful either. It's just that when one factors the definitions, URIs are the only solid bits. Everything else is 'turtles all the way up'. That means the web isn't an information space. It's a name space of opaque identities. len From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com [mailto:Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com] It's an odd thing to do, but I don't see why you can't have e.g. <http://example.com/blargh> owl:sameAs "http://example.com/foo"^^xsd:anyURI . Thus, <http://example.com/blargh> identifies the specific URI "http://example.com.foo". Note that the above statement is not the same as <http://example.com/blargh> owl:sameAs <http://example.com/foo> . I.e. in the first case, <http://example.com/blargh> is identifying the URI, the string conforming to the lexical constraints for URIs, and is not (necessarily) identifying what the URI "http://example.com/foo" itself identifies. -- How having one URI identify another URI would be useful is unclear to me. But in principle, a URI is a thing, and if a URI can identify anything, then one URI can certainly identify another URI. And having an RDF description of <http://example.com/blargh> available allows one to clarify that it identifies a URI, which is quite clear from the first RDF statement above. Patrick > From: ext Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com] > Sent: 26 October, 2004 22:49 > > A mad thought: if URIs identify resources (not representations), > and resources are abstract, do URIs only (put verb here) > other URIs?
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 13:49:50 UTC