- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:07:28 +0100
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- CC: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>, "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jonathan Borden wrote: > 1) Just because it is syntactically possible to assign an rdf:Statement an > ID doesn't mean that it ought be allowable to assign more than one ID to the > same statement. That is true. But unlike Brian McBride, I think the spec is not un ambiguous about Reified statements (though it is precise about Statements). Now, assigning more than one URI to a statement is not only syntactically possible, it is useful. Hence it would be great to officialy allow that. > 2) I strongly caution against trying to wrangle out of this issue using the > "can a resource have multiple URIs" question which rears its head from time > to time. Using the RFC 2364 definition of URI it is clear that the resource > identified by a URI may be abstract and hence *even when 2 URIs resolve to > the same network entity*, each URI still identifies a distinct abstract > resource. The distinction between the resource identified by a URI and an > entity retrieved when a URI is resolved is clearcut. I still agree with you. But the quetion you quote maybe hides a deeper one : "does RDF describe only resources, or does it also describe entities". My guess is that when a resources resolves to a unique entity, it is very tempting to describe the entity rather than the resource -- and I'm pretty sure some RDF users already did. Pierre-Antoine -- Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. (Bill Watterson -- Calvin & Hobbes)
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2000 04:09:38 UTC