Re: Documents, Cars, Hills, and Valleys

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

This is my first posting in this group, so let me introduce myself.
At present, I am Masters student in CS at University of South
Carolina, Columbia. I have been reading the postings on this thread
for few days. I will like to share my naive opinion with all of you.
My opplogies, if I have misinterpreted any one of you.

> From: Thomas B. Passin
> In this particular example, it's easy to assume that the subject of
> http://www.microsoft.com is in fact Microsoft the company 
> (but how would a
> computer know this if a person had not already encoded it?).  
> Once we have
> the subject, we do not have to refer to it as 
> http://www.microsoft.com. We
> can remove the ambiguity for users of our triples about it.   
> For example,
> we can create an anonymous node and say that its type is 
> "company" and that
> the uri representing this resource is (for example)
> "urx:companies:microsoft", then use that uri.

There can be more than one ways to identify a particular resource.
Thus if we use URI's of type 'urx:companies:microsoft' then how do we
distinguish between following resources:
urx:people:rdf-interest:Vaibhav 
urx:people:java-interest:Vaibhav
In such a case how can we verify whether these two persons are same
or different ?

Important point here is not only how person 'Vaibhav' is identified
in an ontological hierarchy but whether these descriptions were given
in the same domain. If yes, is there any equivalency among the two
resources in the ontology used by that domain.

We should not try to force a unique URI for all things that would be
described on the web. Otherwise, if one wanted to describe
http://www.cse.sc.edu/ (department, not website), the person may
first have to find a URI for the resource using a
"Resource-URI-Directory-Service". 

One more point that needs to be considered in designing a URI syntax
is: How to write a URI for an imaginary resource ? 

Everyone (atleast the pollutants of metadata on web :-)) must have
the freedom to choose an ID for resources they describe.
URI is important when a resource outside the local domain is
referred. 
In such case resource identification could be:

http://foreign-domain:ontology-location#resource-id-used-at-foreign-do
main

A resource like 'urx:companies:microsoft' in MHO could be represented
either as http://www.w3.org:company-ontology#microsoft 
or http://www.fortune.com:company-ontology2#MICROSOFT

To summarize:
1.A URI may not be unique text string but all URI's about the same
resource should map to same resource.
  This representaion is comparable to using a namespace and using a
sub-url, that have been suggested earlier in this thread.
2.HTTP URL is Necessary but not Sufficient in a URI

Regards,

Vaibhav

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
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=oWp6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 14:02:13 UTC