Re: Meaning of URIRefs

>>  The second problem with Sandro's position is that other companies are going
>>  to have problems in disputing the invoices of company A.  The only way they
>>  have to refer to these invoices is via URI references taken from
>>, but just the use of one of these URI
>>  references commits the other company to the information in
>>, which is going to include the fact that the
>>  invoice in question is a valid invoice.
>>  I don't see any way around these dilemmas without denying Sandro's
>>  position.
>The way around these problems is to split definitional content and
>general content into different documents.

The trouble with this kind of reply is that it requires all web users 
to obey unspoken and hard-to-define rules of good behavior.  Note 
that you, Sandro, were at pains to explain in your earlier message 
that 'definitional' didn't have any sharp meaning. A very good point; 
but then it is hardly reasonable to immediately require that all web 
users segregate their content into documents according to whether or 
not they satisfy this meaningless distinction.

BUt more seriously, we can SAY things like this all we want, but 
people will not in fact do it. Are you going to try to tell, say, 
Nokia, that they must segregate all their RDF content into different 
documents according to whether or not they are considered 
'definitional'? They would (correctly) laugh at you.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell	

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 13:48:06 UTC