- From: Aredridel <aredridel@nbtsc.org>
- Date: 29 Jul 2003 11:52:54 -0600
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> <http://web4.w3.org/> :mirrors <http://www.w3.org/>. > > might be a good way to say (the true fact) that the browser experience > is meant to be the same, modulo network issues, using those two URIs. > But for that triple to make any sense in RDF, we have to consider the > URIs as identifying something like ResponsePoints [1]. If you go any > more abstract (like to "documents") then the :mirrors relationship is > meaningless. > > -- sandro > > [1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/ResponsePoint Agreed -- as vocabularies stand, URIs denote reponse points. a vocabulary that allows one to state: <http://web4.w3.org/> :mirrors <http://www.w3.org/> <http://www.w3.org/> :hasRepresentation <blanknode> <blanknode> :mimeType "text/html" <blanknode> :revision "2" might be able to let one infer enough information about the representations at each responsepoint and their equivalence. That's useful, I think, and such statements should be very easy to make as a bootstrap for the semantic web -- it will talk about existing resources in a meaningful and less abstract but clearly defined way. Ari
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2003 13:53:30 UTC