W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2001

Re: Using urn:publicid: for namespaces

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:48:06 +0100
Message-ID: <03e401c12452$d5a71660$43dd93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Stephen Cranefield" <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > [...] 2) is, of course, just a variant of 1).
> This is far from obvious to me.  In fact, I believe that a name
> and a definition are fundamentally different and that this
> convention is well established in logic and mathematics.

What I mean is that all resources can be modelled and thought of as
concepts. For example, a homepage as a resource has a URI... that URI
can have a URI (data:,...), the representation of that resource on a
certain date can have a URI, me talking about the representation of
that resource on a certain data can have a URI can have a URI.
Anything that can be identified can have a URI. Any definition of
something that is being identified can also have a URI.

> What happens if the schema is replicated on two different
> servers (and can therefore be accessed via two URLs) -
> do the concepts defined in the schema now have two names?

The names in the schema will often be independant of the storage
location of the schema. For example:-

   <http://blargh.org/#myTerm> :label "myTerm" .

Now, store that anywhere you like: the URI that is being defined isn't
going to change. A concept does not change just because you change the
location of its definition.


Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 13 August 2001 19:49:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:31 UTC