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

I hope you guys are enjoying your discussion.  This is just one vote 
that it has long since ceased to be of general interest.  Furthermore, 
<rant frequency="regular">given the volume of email we deal with, if you 
post something that comes up in a reader with only lines of quoted 
context visible, the chances of it being read take an exponential 
hit.</rant>

>>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
> 


-- 
Cheers, Tim Bray
         (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2003 13:31:28 UTC