- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:24:32 +0100
- To: "Charles F. Munat" <chas@munat.com>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "RDF Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> 3. We can, of course, use a non-resolvable URI scheme > or make up a new one (as I'm guilty of doing myself). I don't happen to think that making new URI schemes should be taboo: a good mark is "can this particular resource be identified to my level of satisfaction by any other URI space?". If not, create a new one for it; I don't see the problem. As for what URI to use for identifying non network retrievable entities, does it matter? I mean theoretically it matters a great deal, but realistically one could use any URI as long as it suits a particular system. I like your three choices, but I would hardly label them as "solutions"... rather they are choices that we have to put up with for now - i.e. pick the one with the least disadvantages. > If it served up text/rdf defined the right way, the two > denotations could happen, at the moment, to be identical. Erm... how many processors do you know of that derference the RDF namespace to gain an insight into how RDF works? -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . :Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 12:24:53 UTC