- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 10:56:27 +0300
- To: seth@robustai.net, sean@mysterylights.com, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: Ora.Lassila@nokia.com
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net] > Sent: 06 June, 2001 21:48 > To: Sean B. Palmer; Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com; > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Cc: Ora.Lassila@nokia.com > Subject: Re: What to do about namespace derived URI refs... (long) > > > From: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com> > > > > But if the web page is describing an abstract entity [see > > > below], and some author decides to coin the URI for > > > that abstract entity to be his web page URL; then the > > > RDF cannot tell the difference between descriptions of > > > the abstract thing and descriptions of web page. > > > > But then the author has assigned a URI to two different resources, > > which is prohibited by the URI specification. It's either a > Web Page, > > or it's the concept of some abstract thing, like love or > hatred, or it > > represents some physical object like a brick, but not all three. Not > > any more than one. > > You missed the point. Naming is something that happens > within the cultural > context of habitual behavior. So that what people actually > tend to do must > be considered when attempting to adopt a naming convention. > People (and > automated agents) use URLs to name Internet accessible > resources. Any URL > with a fragment will return some string of bits. The URL > names that string > of bits whether you or the W3C like it or not. The > functional behavior of > Internet tools creates that naming convention. When a standards body > attempts to suggest otherwise they are just creating confusion. Amen. Well said. Patrick
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 03:56:48 UTC