- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:08:44 +0100
- To: "'RDF Interest'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patrick > Stickler > > I fully agree. http: URLs should *always* resolve to a web > resource. > > If you have a resource that is not web-accessible, you should > *not* denote it with an http: URL. Nonono. In RDF, that's looking into the URI for meaning. It is (another) fundamental principle of the RDF MT that a given URI is a constant and it has no meaning in of itself. Looking into the URI for meaning or processing clues; that's a hack, as you like to put it. > Of course, to some folks, that's either blithering nonsense > or heresy (or both) But hey, it's a free world, and they're > free to be wrong ;-) They're not wrong. You won't find URI schemes in the RDF graph any more than you'll find XML namespaces. Bill de hÓra -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0.4 iQA/AwUBPP9QyeaWiFwg2CH4EQLcGgCfQl8CgNLZF5QVHajQfNllz6pl9jwAoMcT Rp5kd662xWfSLsRxIuwMf0hD =NsbZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 08:11:04 UTC