- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 15:23:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: www-talk@w3.org, uri@w3.org
> > Earlier you suggested that "brilliance" was abstract, yet I happen > > to have a URI for it here; > > > > http://www.markbaker.ca/2001/11/Brilliance/ > > No, that's a URL to retrieve a definition of the abstract > concept 'BRILLIANCE' from a particular web location. No, it's what I say it is. How can you, or anybody else, tell me what I'm naming? > The > fact that you have a clever redirect does not make the URL > any more suitable a representation of the abstract concept > than http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=brilliance. The redirect communicates that I'm currently (it's a temporary redirect) delegating the definition of my concept of brilliance to dictionary.com. > I.e. > > <rdf:Description > rdf:about="voc://patrick.stickler@nokia.com/concepts/brilliance"> > <foo:definitionOf > rdf:resource="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=brilliance"/> > </rdf:Description> > > could be one way I could point to a definition of > "BRILLIANCE" as *I* conceive it, though I may choose some > other definition, or multiple definitions, as I see fit. Using an HTTP temporary redirect on a GET invocation means more or less the same thing as what you have written there. It's "just" another syntax that also happens to be a protocol, that allows you to automate the dissemination and manipulation of that information. Without a protocol that does that, any other URI scheme is automatically playing with a handicap. MB -- Mark Baker, CSO, Planetfred. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 15:18:05 UTC