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

Re: The "info" URI Scheme

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:25:02 +0300
To: ext Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BBA31B1E.1C86%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2003-10-02 18:23, "ext Karl Dubost" <karl@w3.org> wrote:

> Le jeudi, 2 oct 2003, à 09:53 America/Montreal, Patrick Stickler a
> écrit :
> So what? The denotation of a URI has nothing to do with what
>> representations might be available via HTTP or any other protocol.
> agreed.
>> Whether there is or is not anything "at the end of it" has no
>> affect on reasoners using that URI.
> it could have.
>> That's normal life on the SW. Agent's beware.
> utopia.
>> Then it's not the Semantic Web! It's just some closed expert system
>> operating in a bubble.
> no you can have an URI as a generic marker and deferenceable object
> about this marker. It will still be the semantic Web.
>> Err... and so different sources will assert different things about
>> particular resources, and one can choose which sources they trust
>> and which they don't. This is precisely how the SW works.
> no problem with that. I even encourage that. I think you haven't
> understood.
>> One can refer to Merriam Webster/"dog" or Collins/"dog" etc.
>> and those are distinct identifiers, specific to a given dictionary
>> (or even edition of a dictionary). Perhaps they denote the same thing,
>> but they also may have descriptions that differ or even conflict.
> agreed.
>> The SW cannot and will not be a closed, controlled space. And
>> because it will grow and change rapidly and in unexpected ways,
>> the SW architecture must be as flexible and scalable as the SW
>> will be dynamic -- just as the Web architecture is, which is why
>> the Web is such a success.
> agreed.
> You missed the point. think about wildcard DNS, spam, trademarks and
> patents, etc... and apply to the creativity of humans with regards to
> the Semantic Web.

I'm sorry. I'm still missing the point. Can you offer an example and more
specific explanation of that elusive point?

Received on Friday, 3 October 2003 05:25:24 UTC

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