- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 21:40:49 -0400
- To: Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com>
- CC: Jim McCusker <mccusj@rpi.edu>, Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>, Umutcan ŞİMŞEK <s.umutcan@gmail.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, w3c semweb HCLS <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Hi Tom, On 03/17/2013 09:16 AM, Tom Morris wrote: > So a URI is basically the same thing as a blank node label in RDF? No, a blank node has no resource definition. In this sense it is like a URI with an empty definition. > Why all the whinging about making URIs dereferenceable? The reason people advocate serving a URI's definition when that URI is dereferenced is to have a simple, algorithmic way for different RDF authors, working independently, to share the same URI definition. This draft paper on "Framing the URI Resource Identity Problem: The Fundamental Use Case of the Semantic Web" explains why it is so helpful: http://dbooth.org/2012/fyn/Booth-fyn.pdf > 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? Of course you can, but it would be anti-social to do so. So if you did that, others would likely shun your URIs (as they should). David
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 01:41:20 UTC