- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:13:58 -0400 (EDT)
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu, public-sw-meaning@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: Proposed issue: What does using an URI require of me and my software? Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:41:24 -0500 [...] > > 6/ I believe that one of the issues that needs to be resolved is what > > information is implicit in the use of a URI reference with optional > > fragment identifier, particularly in the case where removing the > > fragment identifier results in the URI that can be used to retrieve an > > RDF (or OWL) document. > > Hmm... I don't see how that's any smaller than the > whole rdfURIMeaning-39 issue. I see that there is a broad reading of this, but I meant a much more narrow meaning along the following lines: If the notions of how information is recorded and gathered and how the meaning/denotation/... of a URI reference is determined in a particular context are given then how does one determine the context in which to determine the meaning/denotation/... of a URI reference. I think that this is actually quite a bit smaller than rdfURIMeaning-39, as it excludes issues of differing languages, inaccessible information, etc. My solution, of course, is that under a representation regime context is determined from an initial set of information solely by the explicit importing constructs of that representation regime that import web-accessible documents that are compatible with the representation regime. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2003 08:14:09 UTC