- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:45:27 +0100
- To: "'Joshua Allen'" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "'Nick Matsakis'" <matsakis@mit.edu>, "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com] > > > 2. Don't trust URIs to refer to distinct entities > > All this is suggesting is that we stop using URIs to identify > things. So I guess we should come up with a different scheme > for coming up with identifiers for things. Maybe we will > call it Universal Thing Identifiers, or UTI. That doesn't follow. You're going to have this problem with any naming scheme. > I think it is not so much RDF that suffers, since it also > eliminates usefulness of N3, bare naked triples, or any other > semantic information. Essentially #2 defeats the purpose of > *URIs*. Not at all. You just can't make the assumption in an open system that a URI is always being used to refer to the same resource across the system. Ambiguity is going to be a part of a system where anyone can say anything about anything. URIs are very useful, but care needs to be taken when merging data where URIs are used as names. >> No, we can't stop people from asserting that a web page is a car, but that doesn't mean that we have to jump through hoops to accommodate those people or worry about having to interop with them later. >> Yes, let's impose order on those people...or maybe they'll impose order on us. Anyway you do realize that eventually cars will have IP addresses and very possibly URIs? Bill de hÓra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPMgIdeaWiFwg2CH4EQIzdACfTw1M4RPDpnBcViIf5CLe7TnFbLsAoLGI tOqTpHOTUGBNkc2i+zsArJjC =LOPl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:52:11 UTC