- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:37:47 -0700
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 01:44 PM 7/26/01 -0700, pat hayes wrote: >>Right, good example; though I think we have to treat URI's >>differently from URL's in any case. > >Oooh! A bit of Web heresy there, I think. Depending on one's point >of view, the typical Web view is something like this: >(a) there is no difference between URLs and URIs -- they're just >identifiers, or >(b) a URL is just a kind of URI that contains some built-in hints >about how to use the Web to access the resource it names (e.g., >protocol, addressing information), which isn't otherwise >semantically significant (for RDF). > >Any way, I think that treating things differently based on a URL/URI >distinction is to go on very shaky ground. I spoke carelessly. What I should have said (since URLs are URI's, if for no other reason) is that URL's can be treated in particular ways that may not be applicable to all URI's, and that in RDF we can't assume that any URI is going to be URL-like. URLs are a special case; as you say, they contain built-in hints about access, but we can't assume that all URIs have such hints. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2001 19:37:38 UTC