- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:56:36 -0700
- To: <msabin@interx.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Actually, I had been mis-reading. The solution I agree with is that The anonymous (or named if you want) node: [http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html dc:Creator] Identifies the person. The node: [http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html] Identifies the page. This is how RDF works anyway. > -----Original Message----- > From: Miles Sabin [mailto:msabin@interx.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:06 PM > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > > Danny Ayers wrote, > > if I state that > > > > http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html dc:Creator > > http://www.markbaker.ca/index.html > > > > then it can inferred that one of these is a person or organisation > > and the other something with intellectual content. No conflict. > > Joshua Allen wrote, > > I like this solution. > > Now I'm completely confused, because Danny's solution only makes > sense, > > * If URIs can be ambiguous (ie. we have two occurrences of the same > URI in his example, each with a different referent). > > * If the use context of a URI can resolve ambiguity in its referent > (ie. in the subject role of dc:Creator, ambiguity is resolved in > favour of the person, in the object role, in favour of the > document). > > But these are precisely the contentions I've been making throughout > these threads, and which you appeared to be objecting to so > vehemently. > > Has peace broken out? Or were/are we talking at cross purposes? > > Cheers, > > > Miles
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 17:56:40 UTC