Re: What would break, a question for implementors? (was Re: Is 303 really necessary?)

Kingsley,

I'm not sure that you're joking, so I'll answer:

It's unambiguous to those who know that Ben Kingsley was in Gandhi and 
Sexy Beast. It's probably close to unambiguous to those who know that Ben 
Kingsley is an actor, and Gandhi and Sexy Beast are movies. To everyone 
else, it's probably ambiguous, which is my point.

Joel.




On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 11/9/10 5:04 PM, joel sachs wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/9/10 11:10 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> A URI is just an Identifier. We can't  "Describe" what isn't unambiguously 
>>> Identified (Named);
>> 
>> Kingsley,
>> 
>> I think we can, though we might not be properly understood, e.g. "Kingsley 
>> was great in Gandhi and Sexy Beast."
>
> To whom is this unambiguous?
>
> Kingsley
>
>> 
>> Wasn't this part of the summer's argument regarding literals as 
>> rdf:subjects , i.e.
>> 
>> Those opposed: But you might be misunderstood.
>> Those in favour: We'll take our chances.
>> ?
>
>> 
>> Joel.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> hence the use of "Names" since the beginning of shared cognition era re. 
>>> human evolution.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Kingsley Idehen    President&  CEO
>>> OpenLink Software
>>> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>>> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>>> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
> -- 
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen	President&  CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 23:00:31 UTC