- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 10:45:55 +0200
- To: ext Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: URI <uri@w3.org>
On 2002-01-18 19:44, "ext Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
>> Meaning that if needed semantics are not defined for a given
>> URI scheme from the get go, you can't (at least not easily)
>> go back and add it.
>
> I believe that this is one of the things that the Semantic Web should
> be used for. Otherwise, where do you draw the line about which
> semantics go where (the URI scheme, or the SW)?
>
> MB
I agree that the SW and RDF will play a major role in describing
URI schemes and specific URI-denoted resources, but that is neither
here nor there, IMO, with regards to what semantics are defined
for all instances (URIs) of a given URI scheme, or for all instances
(URI Schemes) of a given URI Class versus the semantics or other
knowledge defined for a specific URI -- or rather the resource
denoted by that URI.
It's an issue of scalability.
To say that URI Schemes are to be as semantically anemic as
possible and just make statements about the particular URIs
is going to introduce an untenable and unnecessary overhead
on the SW.
If there is consistent, uniform intersection of semantics for
all instances of a URI scheme, then define that semantics within
the scope of the URI Scheme definition -- and in fact I assert
that that is precisely why we have URI Schemes.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Saturday, 19 January 2002 05:18:05 UTC