W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > July 2003

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

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:11:20 -0400
Message-Id: <200307101611.h6AGBKfB004070@roke.hawke.org>
To: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>
cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, tbray@textuality.com, hardie@qualcomm.com, uri@w3.org

> On Thu, 2003-07-10 at 11:59, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > > An
> > > SW-resource is a first order object that can make statements about
> > > itself such as its uniqueness, how its compared to others, etc.
> > 
> > I'm not sure where you get this idea, but I can't let it pass
> > unchallenged.
> > 
> > In the Last Call Working Draft of _RDF Semantics_ (the current spec)
> > [1], "resource" is defined as "An entity; anything in the universe."
> > (In this kind of formal logic text, "universe" means "universe of
> > discourse", not just the real world you and I live in.  Unicorns are
> > certainly resources by this definition.)
> > 
> > This is, as far as I can tell, exactly the same entended meaning for
> > "resource" as in RFC 2396 and RFC 2396bis.  And that's what the RDF Core
> > WG intended, as far as I know.
> 
> And that was a layer violation and a mistake...
> 
> Just because the members of the set of RDF Resources have a direct
> mapping to the members of the set of URI Resources doesn't mean that the
> semantics are the same. If they were then you would be saying that all
> applications that use URIs would then have to be aware of RDF's
> equivalence semantics. 

But if they really are the same, then there is nothing more to be
aware of.

What do you imagine an application would have to do different to be
compatible with RDF Semantics?

   -- sandro
Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 12:26:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:06 UTC