- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:50:08 +0300
- To: <msabin@interx.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Miles Sabin [mailto:msabin@interx.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 5:24 PM > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: RE: Documents, Cars, Hills, and Valleys > > > Manos Batsis wrote, > > Very simply, almost both sides are right. An HTTP URI represents a > > document or fragment (after all, that's what it points to), which in > > turn represents whatever. This should satisfy both sides. I don't > > see the point of this argument. > > I'm happy to agree with this in some cases, but not in all. > > In some situations it makes sense to think of representation as > transitive (ie. if the URI represents a document which in turn > represents todays news, then the URI represents todays news), > in which > case the URI is still ambiguous without additional context. > > In other situations there's no document for the URI to > represent. This > is often the case with namespace URIs, in which case they represent > an abstract namespace or nothing at all. If they do represent an > abstract namespace, then why would putting a retrievable document at > the end of them defeat their original non-retrievable reference? Seems that the XML Names spec gets all the blame for this week. IMHO, non-retrievable namespace URIs should only be URNs. BTW, I strongly believe that a namespace declaration should be used to bind a Schema or other (meta)information to a document (instead of the current mechanism). I never understood why W3C decided against this much more solid design. Regards, Manos
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 10:50:25 UTC