W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Documents, Cars, Hills, and Valleys

From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:17:29 +0300
Message-ID: <E657D8576967CF448D6AF22CB42DD26908BED8@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Hi Joshua,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com] 

> Now you see my point.  The status quo is that there are a few people
> publishing assertions that very few other people ever use, and are
> impossible to aggregate globally in any meaningful way.

Why is that impossible? What kind and types of metadata are you
referring to?

If I understand your post, this is all about URIs and the current
ambiguous meaning of what they identify. I really don't think this is a
problem that leads to closed systems (if that was your point) or that
the situation is so dramatic anyways.

Indeed, the semantic web is not a reality yet. That is good news to my
ears, because it means we have time to work on the technology to be
based upon for it. URIs are adequate for use as "universal identifiers",
which is a good point. What URIs actually point to is another thing and
I expect various mechanisms or design methodologies to come up for this
soon. One may easily get a quick fix,  something like a  "closed system"
solution to solve this or any problem for his world, but this "solution"
can be exposed as well so what is the problem? We are going through a
(constant) transitive faze; standard solutions will be presented and
will be accepted in the future (if necessary and if they are

IMHO, we will eventually treat resources as representatives of other
resources (including themselves) or go the other way around and have
different representatives for the same resource but that is another
subject so no flames please :-)


Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 04:17:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:35 UTC