RE: URI for language identifiers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 02 April, 2003 10:50
> To: Jan Algermissen
> Cc: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: URI for language identifiers
> 
> 
> * Jan Algermissen <algermissen@acm.org> [2003-04-02 09:45+0200]
> > 
> > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > But if the URI denotes two things, how do you differentiate
> > > between statements made about one versus the other?
> > 
> > The URI does not denote two things. There are just two 
> kinds of properties
> > on topics that use URIs as values. The semantics of the 
> properties are
> > different.
> > 
> > The whole thing is different because in topic maps, you 
> have an unlimited
> > number of possibilities to identify what a given topic represents.
> > 
> > > It comes down to whether there is one web or many. Most folks
> > > want there to be one web, not e.g. a REST Web and a Semantic
> > > Web. In order for the Semantic Web to be "part of" the one
> > > web, we need to be able to refer to anything whatsoever using
> > > URIs, and that includes abstract concepts and other non-web
> > > accessible resources.
> > > 
> > > Now some, including TimBL, would prefer to make a key distinction
> > > between URIs and URIrefs, where URIs only denote web-accessible
> > > resources, and URIrefs must be used to denote non-web accessible
> > > resources. Others, including myself, see no need for such a
> > > distinction.
> > 
> > This is helpful information to me, thanks.
> 
> But inaccurate. I think Patrick's comments relate only to the 
> TimBL view of
> http:// and https:// URIs, and perhaps specified others, such 
> as gopher://.

Yes. Thanks Dan. I didn't mean to misrepresent Tim's views.

I was specifically thinking of his comments regarding http: URIs.

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 03:32:34 UTC