W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2003

RE: URI for language identifiers

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 16:32:09 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBB5B@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <miles@milessabin.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@milessabin.com]
> Sent: 01 April, 2003 16:10
> To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: URI for language identifiers
> Patrick Stickler wrote,
> > *How* or *where* a given URI is used does not affect its
> > authoritative meaning. Usage can only reflect the presumptions
> > of the user, but that does not usurp the authority fo the owner,
> > and may very well result in disagreement or ambiguity.
> I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.
> Other than intrinsic network and DNS semantics, there isn't currently 
> any notion of an authority for a URI which has semantic relevance to 
> RDF.

Either you have not understood what I was saying, or you are simply wrong
(or both ;-)

The denotation of a given URI is that which the owner of that URI
specifies. Period.

And any disagreement about the denotation of a given URI utimately
must be resolved by the owner of that URI.

If I mint a URI and say it denotes the city of Paris, France. And
you come along and use it to denote the city of Paris, Mississippi,
then you are wrong and I am right, because it's *my* URI. It's as
simple as that. The owner of a URI gets to say what it denotes and
if you don't agree, then don't use that URI. Use of someone elses
URI is an implicit agreement about what the owner says it denotes
(leaving aside cases of misunderstanding, etc.)

Likewise, if I have a URI that denotes a document that I wrote and
of which I am the owner, and I make a statement that e.g. it has
4293 characters of textual content in it and you say it has only
1882 characters of textual content in it, then my assertion bears
an authority that yours does not. True, it may very well be that you
are correct and I might be incorrect, but that doesn't in any way
change the fact that assertions about a resource made by the 
owner of the resource bear special authority over assertions made
by third parties.

> Ironically, your claiming that there is such an authority is 
> an example 
> of a local ascription of meaning based on idiosyncratic use ;-)

I don't see that. I think you should re-read my post. Perhaps you
missed what I was saying...

Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 08:32:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:41 UTC