W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Comments on "SPARQL 1.1 Uniform HTTP Protocol for Managing RDF Graphs"

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 07:49:37 +0530
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjekje@ifi.uio.no>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5D79C9E9-FE0B-43FC-88EE-BC391D0A4C4C@w3.org>
To: nathan@webr3.org
On 2011-03 -19, at 02:21, Nathan wrote:

> Here's another quick rewrite:
> David Booth wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 18:55 +0000, Nathan wrote:
>>>> Can something be both a birth certificate and a red lightbulb? (my intuition says no).
>> In a given graph g, a URI u can perfectly well (ambiguously) identify
>> something that is both a birth certificate and a red
>> lightbulb, provided that g has no disjointness or other such predicates
>> that would prevent it from being so.
>> You need to know what graph you are asking about, and what assertions it
>> contains, to answer the question.
> So perhaps the question being answered is, can we feasibly carry out a conversation where we refer to both a birth certificate and a red lightbulb by a single ambiguous name? using RDF?
> Possibly, but why even try?

Seeing that without having caught up on the thread,
No, I really do not want to go down that route, of trying that.
It is a fundamental architectural principle that a URI can be taken out of context
an needs no other context to figure out what it identifies.
So if I say for URI x  "x expires on 2015-01-01" I must be able to know 
whether the lightbulb or the certificate expires.

We have a huge linked data infrastructure based in this
architecture which I do not want to start again.

Received on Saturday, 19 March 2011 02:20:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:24 UTC