Re: URI for language identifiers

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > -----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.

Sorry, you still don't understand it. Topic Maps live on top of the
relationship between resource and URI. They *use* the concept of resource/URI,
they don't change it. So what you write is simply not true.

Jan


> 
> Patrick

-- 
Jan Algermissen                           http://www.topicmapping.com
Consultant & Programmer	                  http://www.gooseworks.org

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 2003 06:33:25 UTC