RE: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need forurn: URIs

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@neonym.net]
> Sent: 10 July, 2003 16:59
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: tbray@textuality.com; sandro@w3.org; hardie@qualcomm.com; 
> uri@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal: new top level domain '.urn' alleviates all need
> forurn: URIs
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 09:20, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > But this says nothing whatsoever about equivalence
> > of denotation, only about lexical equivalence of the
> > URIs themselves.
> 
> Correct. Lexical equivalence of URIs is all that RFC 2396(bis) talks
> about. If you want to go beyond that then you have to do it in an
> application specific manner.
> 
> > While it is true that applications operating in terms
> > of RFC 2396 alone might presume that two lexically
> > distinct URIs denote different resources (entities),
> > that does *not* mean that any two URIs *can't* or
> > *don't* denote the same resource.
> 
> You're mixing your definitions of 'same' again. You are posting this
> discussion to the uri@w3.org mailing list, not an RDF or OWL mailing
> list. Here we always operate in terms of RFC 2396 alone since that is
> how you maintain the generality of URIs. If OWL has a way of 
> saying that
> two different URIs have some owl-ish concept of equivalence 
> then great,
> go talk about it on the OWL list. Its not a concept that is generally
> applicable to all URI schemes and all applications.
> 
> > The purpose of the Semantic Web, and tools such as
> > OWL, is precisely to provide a standardized means of
> > providing such information to such applications.
> 
> Great to hear it! But how is that universally applicable 
> unless you are 
> suggesting that every application that uses URIs must become 
> OWL and SW
> compliant? I hope not. I don't think Cisco hubs can spare the 
> cycles for
> parsing RDF graphs.

I'm not proposing any such thing, only that RFC 2396 not
preclude the possibility that two lexically distinct URIs
might denote the same resource.

You seem to be asserting that they can't, at the level of
URIs alone, which hamstrings any higher layers.

> > Surely RFC 2396 is not intended to prohibit the
> > co-denotation of URIs?
> 
> Its not intended to prohibit it. But its not intended to mandate it
> either. 

Well, all fine and good. But your earlier comments strongly
suggested otherwise.

Patrick

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 11:07:32 UTC