- From: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
- Date: 09 Jul 2003 15:11:17 -0400
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: hardie@qualcomm.com, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, uri@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-07-09 at 15:05, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > At 2:35 PM -0400 7/9/03, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > > > > I'm using the word "same" in the normal dictionary sense of being > > >> > truly and completely indistinguishable. If I tell you <Jim> > > >> > owl:sameAs <James>, then you know I'm using the terms "<Jim>" and > > >> > "<James>" as synonyms, as two names for the same thing. > > >> > > >> Absolutely correct! _You_ have told me that "Jim" and "James" are > > >> synonymous. But RFC 2396 provides no method for making such statements. > > > > > >I can put aside the OWL terminology entirely. > > > > > >You seem to be saying that > > > http://www.w3.org/ > > >and > > > http://WWW.w3.org/ > > >could not possibly ever both identify the same resource. You seem to > > >be saying that if two URIs are textually different, they cannot > > >possibly identify the same thing. > > > > I don't think that's quite what he said. He said that the knowledge that two > > identifiers were equivalent was outside the generic URI syntax, and based > > in the semantics of the scheme or the application using the scheme. > > I wish he had said that, but he didn't. I'm giving him every chance > to say that, but he's not taking it. I guess that is another way of saying the same thing. It like Graham said: 2396 doesn't make any statements about equality other than the identity property of a syntactically normalized URI being equal to itself. Any other concepts of equivalence are outside the generic URI syntax and thus based on the semantics of a particular scheme or application making use of them..... Is there a difference between those two ways of saying the same thing? -MM
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 15:12:40 UTC