- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:22:31 +0300
- To: <algermissen@acm.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jan Algermissen [mailto:algermissen@acm.org] > Sent: 02 April, 2003 12:05 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > Subject: Re: URI for language identifiers > > > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ext Jan Algermissen [mailto:algermissen@acm.org] > > > Sent: 02 April, 2003 10:46 > > > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere) > > > Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > > > Subject: Re: URI for language identifiers > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Are you denoting topics using URIs or not? > > TMs use property/value pairs to identify what they represent. The URI > allown is simply not enough. Well, I think that pretty much sums it up then. URIs cannot unambiguously denote resources on their own in XTM. Pity. Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 05:22:40 UTC