- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:55:11 -0700
- To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> same way - look at the number of the ways people on this list have found > to use identifiers, references and so on. To expect an essentially I don't think that the people on this list are representative. The people on this list enjoy intellectual debate, and are deliberately trying to come up with various alternatives. That's successful brainstorming and opinionated discourse; it doesn't prove a crisis in the status of URIs as identifiers. > rigid mapping to last without breaking in an environment with potentially > millions (billions?) of users seems to me to be optimistic, to say the > least. If you can give me one example in the history of humanity where > such a thing has remained constant, then I'll concede the point. This is a poor argument. Words mean things. Just because there are rare cases where a word will be used with connotation that is opposite its normal connotation does not mean that words are meaningless. Are words "too far gone"? I don't have to prove that ambiguity never existed to assert that gratuitous ambiguity is a stupid strategy. > doesn't help. They each have a role in different problem-solving > scenarios : the first is critical to most forms of communication, the There is only one very simple problem being solved here. If I want to allow millions of people to independently share their assertions and know that they are talking about the same "thing", how do I identify a "thing". > look at the reality of the URI rather than trying to change it or invent a Yes. The reality is that URIs which use http: refer to something that uses HTTP -- a web page. > magic "UTI" to replace it (apart from locally - no problem with UTIs > there). But locality is the opposite of the semantic web, so I guess this is off-topic. And the idea of a "local universal identifier" sounds pretty fishy. > I think viewing the URI as a set and using context within inference is > probably the best pragmatic solution. I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have an example of how to solve the simple problem I pointed out?
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 17:55:48 UTC