- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 01:25:20 -0400
- To: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
OK, the opportunity for me to ask my first naive question. For now and if I understood correctly. URI doesn't have to be deferenced. They are chosen or defined by a person or a group of person as a pointer to an intended meaning which is described somewhere else. One of the issue: an URI relies on a domain name that can be cheated, stolen by someone else, given by the justice to someone else. I know only 3 domain names which have not this problems. example.org example.com example.net Ex: http://example.org/meaning/tomato/sauce And when someone uses it, he/she will choose the definition of it which is at the place http://www..../explanation/tomato-sauce (URL1) or http://www.../ontology/kitchen/sauce#tomato (URL2) NAIVE QUESTION: Why can't we use these domain names to define URIs? Reasoning: Why I came to this naive question. In english, I can use the word "headache" (URI), but the definitions of this word is available in many different dictionaries http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ define.asp?key=36196&dict=CALD&desc=headache (URL1) http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/ webwn1.7.1?stage=1&word=headache (URL2) Lot of possible choices here http://www.onelook.com/?w=headache&ls=a So you will have an URI which is not dependent on the technical architecture and you can decide to say: "I have chosen that these URLs were a representation of the meaning of my URI." -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 01:25:21 UTC