- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:06:10 +0300
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
I may be too young and ignorant but all these URI ambiguity threads seem meaningless. There is no ambiguity, just incomplete semantics. Is it so difficult to do something like <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ibm.com" mm:onLineRepresentationOf="http://www.myDomain.org/schemes/entities/comp anies#ibm"> Of course, one would say, the object here is a document fragment as well; not IBM. However, it is my most accurate representation of IBM as a company using RDFS. If that is not enough, we can just throw RDF out of the window and get over with it. A URL identifies a document. Not it's creator or owner, but just a document. All URLs identify a document; whether that is retrievable or it returns a 404 is irrelevant. That includes what people call URIs when http is used (don't ask). Now, a document, can be a representative of it's owner or creator, thus we point to it as if it where that entity because it represents it. I see no ambiguity at all; RDF is an extensible mechanism for metadata schemes; describing what a *document* may represent under certain circumstances is what comes natural no? The above methodology (not even that since it's just the way RDF works) can be applied to any type of URI, erasing all that ambiguity considerations; All that is needed perhaps, is a common vocabulary to describe likewise representations. Making URIs clear does not mean our metadata will be clear to each other. My point is, we cannot expect from RDF to do by itself the part of the work that is ours; Resource Description Framework is just the tool to do it. Just my .25, Manos
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 04:06:18 UTC