- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:05:14 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
> Le mardi, 23 sep 2003, à 00:02 America/Montreal, pat hayes a écrit :
> > Well, the OWNER of a URI is I guess free to say anything they like
> > using it, including change their mind about its meaning. I agree that
> > if this happens a lot, things will get confusing. But in the absence
> > of some kind of totalitarian control over Web usage, I see no way to
> > guarantee that this can never happen.
Right, no guarantee, just social forces to discourage it.
Also, one can make the content be immutable using a cryptographic
hash, but that's probably not what folks usually want.
> or maybe domain name should not be part of URIs. Maybe it should not
> rely on that, but on something like urn only.
> Right now when a book is written it has its own unique ISBN,
(Slight digression: ISBN's get reused sometimes. See RFC 3187:
"Nevertheless, publishers do occasionally re-use the same number.")
> - Why an international system like that could no exist for the
> Semantic Web?
It could easily, eg the tag: URI scheme I proposed. But that's not
as good as HTTP, because then there would be no single, available
authority to tell you more, given just the URI.
That is, the whole point of using URIs in RDF (as far as I can tell)
is so that folks can look at a term and find out more about it,
quickly and simply, using the Web.
-- sandro
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 18:05:09 UTC