- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@home.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 18:10:39 -0500
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
[Sean B. Palmer] > > I am arguing weakly that, from a practical POV, it's not a GoodThing > to restrict people to HTTP URIs as documents, because often there will > be utility in using the URI to identify the concept described by the > document, and yet people can still refer to the document itself with a > simple relationship. Of course, the counter argument is that if all > HTTP URIs necessarily identify generic documents, we can still use the > relationship the other way to talk about the concept... but I really > do think that people should be given the choice. > This is what RDDL was trying to address, in a restricted domain. When you dereference the RDDL URL, you get a variety of "well-known" types of information about the resource. Let me pose a question here. Is there a basic, conceptual difference between: 1) Meta data about a resource (like the distinction between a book and one specific copy of it - as in Sean's post: "But whoops... Aaron is already using that URI to identify his copy of Weaving The Web"), 2) Different predicates for asserting such distinctions, or 3) Special headers for announcing such a distinction Cheers, Tom P
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 18:10:47 UTC