- From: Simon Price <simon.price@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:33:03 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Phil Dawes <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: >>Actually, I think I'll disagree with myself before anyone else does. >>Taking Dan's point, the ordering could well be IFP > no URI/IFP > URI >>because the URI is in no way a property of the described object whereas >>all other properties are. > > > Why isn't something's URI an IFP property of the thing? TimBL calls It is I guess, and I'm sure there are other properties which are not intrinsic to an object (e.g. catalog no. for a DVD). URIs are only the most convenient (in my ordering) if the same one is widely used for the same object. Perhaps I should smush URI and IFP into one. Simon > that property log:uri, I think. For a while, I generalized it > slightly to u:uname [1]. > > -- sandro > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/12/uname/ > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Price, Technical Consultant, Internet Development Group Institute for Learning and Research Technology http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/aboutus/staff?search=ecsnp
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 17:33:15 UTC