- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:51:03 -0700
- To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "julian.reschke@gmx.de" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
> In fact, being pedantic I should ask you to properly define what you > mean when you refer to dbpedia. Do you mean the database of facts > derived from wikipedia dumps, the project to create that database, the > team that undertakes the project, the website that provides access to > the database or possibly the domain name dbpedia.org? > BTW http://dbpedia.org/resource/DBpedia appears to be a URI for the > project and http://dbpedia.org/resource/DBpedia_Team seems to be a URI > for the team. I've been thinking of a way of describing the ambiguity of reference that a single URI represents, as far as the "resource" it identifies.... that the main ambiguity is in the scope. The URI doesn't identify the "boundary" of the resource, just a single "point of contact" or "surface of contact". If a resource has extent, then the identification doesn't cover the scope. If you think of resources as sets of points, then the "identification" from URI to Resource is to a single or subset of the points. URI -(identifies) -> contact points -- (subset of) --> resource So you could say that, for DPPedia the project and the team and the organization and the whole site and the whole site today and the whole site last year and the home page ... well they were all subset resources of "DBpedia". With this conception, httpRange still is off, because it doesn't acknowledge the possible subset relationship. Do you think this might be a plausible design to consider? Larry
Received on Sunday, 16 August 2009 18:51:46 UTC