Re: ISSUE-58: Scalability of URI Access to Resources

/ Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com> was heard to say:
| On 8/28/07, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com> wrote:
|> Hello Chimezie,
|>
|> Probably  couple of obtuse questions...
|>
|> - How do "RDF URI" differ from URI in general?
|
| I tried to cover some of this in the following Wiki:
| http://esw.w3.org/topic/RDFSemiotics
|
| This is mostly a rehash from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ (so I hope
| Pat will slap me on the hand when I'm chatting rubbish), but
| generally, RDF URIs are 'symbols' which denote things in an
| interpretation (a 'theory').  The expressions in which the RDF URIs
| are used describe a set of conditions that must be met to satisfy the
| interpretation.  The end-game (goal, if you wish) is "to provide a
| technical way to determine when inference processes are valid, i.e.
| when they preserve truth."

I've lost the thread of how this has a bearing on the scalability
issue. Is it simply that lots of RDF applications use URIs without
ever dereferencing them? So they don't tend to introduce the
scalability problem?

| In addition, outside of the consumption of information resources,
| there is no 'formal' mechanism to follow to 'interpret' or infer
| 'meaning' from web resources (other than specific representation
| formats - which are primarily concerned with syntax not 'semantics' )

Uhm. We could argue about that, but I don't think it's related to issue-58.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | More men become good through practice
http://nwalsh.com/            | than through nature.--Democritus of
                              | Abdera