Re: In defence of 404 ...

Dan
> Ah... I misread your point. Indeed, in the general case,
> lots of documents may discuss the same resource, and none
> of them is authoritative. If DOC1#T1 and DOC2#T1 both
> refer to France, there is no web architecture mechanism
> for determining which is authoritative.
>   
OK. But I don't want to have DOC1#T1 *and* DOC2#T1 as two distinct URIs 
defining France. I want one URI to define France. 
> The point I was making is there are authoritative descriptions
> corresponding to URIs. Whatever whatever http responses
> the owner of DOC1#T1 gives are authoritative descriptions
> of DOC1#T1.
>   
Sure enough
> And yes, things change over time.
>   
I'm glad we agree on that :-)
> [...]
>   
>>> It seems very unnatural to me to use anything other than a single
>>> static file for the case of an ontology with just a few dozen terms.
>>> Maybe a handful of content-negotiated static files. But not more than
>>> that.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Just a few dozen terms, yes. But with semantics not so "static" as you 
>> would like them to be. geo:Region is not rdfs:subClassOf - The real 
>> world apologizes for being so messy, changing and unstable :-) .
>>     
>
> It's reasonably straightforward to change the contents of a static
> file on a web server, no?
>
>   
Sure it is. But the point is that I don't want to change the file. I 
want to publish a new one about the same entities, without deprecating 
the old one.

-- 

*Bernard Vatant*

Knowledge Engineering

----------------------------------------------------**

*Mondeca **
*3, cité Nollez 75018 Paris France

Web: www.mondeca.com <http://www.mondeca.com>

----------------------------------------------------

Tel. +33 (0) 871 488 459 

Mail: bernard.vatant@mondeca.com <mailto:bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>

Wikipedia user <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Universimmedia>

Received on Monday, 7 August 2006 14:59:50 UTC