- From: Nick Matsakis <matsakis@mit.edu>
- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 21:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- cc: RDF-Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Dan Brickley wrote: > Why make work for ourselves? What worldy benefit is there in coming up > with criteria for splitting the world into two huge disjoint categories: > 'things that can be named with http:-uris, and things that can't'? I don't think that we are talking about asking people making knowledge bases to split up their conceptual world. Rather, we are saying that they should try to use a namespace that minimizes potential conflicts down the road, and that perhaps "http://" is not a great one in this regard. We always have to accept the possiblity that there is some unreasonable person out there that will use all the wrong names for things. I think these knowledge bases will be easy to detect. Our bigger problem will come when there are *lots of* reasonable people out there who choose an http: uri to refer to a network accessible resource, and another big group which uses the same uri to refer to a non-network accessible resource. I still feel like the different sides are fighting (different) straw men. Is anyone actually proposing that it is acceptable to use URL of a person's homepage to name that person in RDF? Nick Matsakis
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2002 21:21:58 UTC