- From: Norman Gray <norman@astro.gla.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 01:38:10 +0100
- To: Michael Brunnbauer <brunni@netestate.de>
- Cc: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, public-lod community <public-lod@w3.org>
Michael, hello. On 2012 Mar 28, at 22:35, Michael Brunnbauer wrote: > For all URIs U: denote(U) = access(U) -> denote(U) a IR > > It follows: For all URIs U: denote(U) not a IR -> denote(U) != access(U) I think it's impossible, within the terms of HR14, to say 'denote(U) not a IR' -- you can prove something is in IR, but you can neither prove nor even operationally assert that it's not. >> -There may or may not be IRs that do not denote what they access. > > And this should be: > > There is a URI U where: denote(U) a IR and denote(U) != access(U). > > Now if a am allowed to mint a URI that 303's to your homepage and your > homepage is an IR, such an URI must exist: > > U1 = Your URI for your homepage > U2 = My URI for your homepage I don't think you even need the 303. If you make a URI, declare it to be a URI identifying my home page (I think David Booth has written about how you'd do this formally), and then have it 200-respond with a map of the Englisher Garten, then this places my homepage in IR, but does not access it. This appears to be compatible with HR14 in an only slightly perverse reading. I'm not sure what follows from that (but I suspect that way madness lies). > I think I'll stay out of this discussion from now :-) I think we should draw a veil, here... Best wishes, Norman -- Norman Gray : http://nxg.me.uk SUPA School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, UK
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2012 00:38:38 UTC