W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2004

Re: InverseFunctional properties are the new URI?

From: Simon Price <simon.price@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:33:03 +0100
Message-ID: <41096D0F.4040905@bristol.ac.uk>
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.


> 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
Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 17:33:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:50 UTC