- From: Guha <guha@epinions-inc.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 14:33:49 -0800
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- CC: Guha <guha@epinions-inc.com>, www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Tim, I think many of these questions center around precisely defining what an RDF Resource Identifier is supposed to be. I agree that we need to distinguish between RDF Resource identifiers and URIs. A URI is a pretty formal object (protocol + host + opaque string) whose definition pretty concretely constrains what can have a URI. By this definition, people, places, etc. cannot have URIs. On the other hand, it would be very convenient to have a unique canonical identifier for refering to the one TimBL or one RalphSwick. In my reading, this is what the RDF Resource ID is. Everything (including literals, URIs, ...) could potentially have one of these. I do think it would be nice if an application can assume some kind of structure to these identifiers, but not being able to do so would not be fatal. I agree with you that http://foo.org/bar.rdf#xyz is a lousy identifier for an object. To me, it just represents a position is a file. In the long run, the object identifier namespace will have to be like the DNS namespace. Reactions? guha
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 17:37:12 UTC