On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:20 AM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote: > On 03/16/2013 12:37 PM, Jim McCusker wrote: > >> I'm not terribly interested in a Humpty Dumpty interpretation of the web >> of data. >> > > Well, you'd better get used to it, because that interpretation is standard > RDF Semantics. I don't think it's going away any time soon. Perhaps the spec will get aligned with the real world before it gets widely adopted. > That's part of the motivation for having global identifiers > >> like URIs/URLs. >> > > Exactly! That's why the idea that "a URI identifies one resource" is "a > good goal, and helpful as a guide to URI users", even though it is not > actually true. So a URI is basically the same thing as a blank node label in RDF? Why all the whinging about making URIs dereferenceable? If you dereference http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en.boston can I send you triples about Aerosmith instead? Can I sometimes send you information about the band and sometimes the city depending on what I think the context is? And people wonder why it's taking decades for this stuff to get any traction! Tom
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2013 13:16:51 UTC