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

RE: Disambiguation; keeping the "U" in "URI"

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:45:52 +0200
To: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFKECPFNAA.danny666@virgilio.it>

>I don't.  At least, not until you say whether the value - the second
>http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html in the triple - is a resource or a
>literal.  Remember, to date we can still use either as the object of a
>statement.  If it's a literal, maybe this could work.

I was actually thinking of it as a resource.

But if it's a
>resource, it's fair game to be the subject of another statement, and we are
>about to get mightily confused.  After all, we could be able to logically
>conclude that http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html is both a person and
>intellectual content.

 http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html  can refer to a person or intellectual
content (depending on the context).

 Perhaps that is true for Mark (I've never met him in
>person), but unlikely to be the kind of thing we want to imply in general.

Mark seems to also go by the name of Error 404...

>I guess we could get really radical here and say that that we alway have to
>use templates for the predicate to provide a context for understanding the
>nature of a resource in a statement.  That doesn't appeal to me so
>I hope we
>don't have to end up there.  Probably it only pushes the issue up a level

We are already in the situation where the URI is used to mean different
things in different contexts. Using templates for the predicate (I hadn't
actually thought of it that way, but I suppose that's what it amounts to) is
a relatively simple way of using existing information. Only pushes the issue
up a level? Maybe so, but this higher level is better able to make sense of
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:27:10 UTC

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