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

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

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 10:31:25 -0700
Message-ID: <3F0DA2ED.7020302@textuality.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Michael Mealling <michael@neonym.net>, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, hardie@qualcomm.com, uri@w3.org

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

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