- From: Ian Davis <ian.davis@talis.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:52:03 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-rdf-wg WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 11:52:42 UTC
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote: > > >> That seems wrong. “Identifies” and “denotes” are distinct mechanisms, > but it has always been the goal to align them wherever possible. The > phrasing above seems to explicitly require that they are different – a URI > “identifies” one thing but “denotes” another. That's bad. > > > > Why is it bad if identify is not identical with denote? > > Because “identifies” is how the web works – it's the basis for virtually > all uses of URIs outside of the narrow domain of RDF. > > As an example, it makes sense to a PUT to a graph store, but it doesn't > make sense to PUT to a g-snap. We couldn't say “<u> :accessAllowedFor <ian>” > without breaking RDF Semantics, for example. > > Yes, you can't PUT to a g-snap because they are immutable sets. You can PUT to a g-box and <u> can identify a g-box. Best, > Richard Ian -- Ian Davis, Chief Technology Officer, Talis Group Ltd. http://www.talis.com/ | Registered in England and Wales as 5382297
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 11:52:42 UTC