- From: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:32:03 +0100
- To: "www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Quoting "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@comcast.net>: > > Jon Hanna wrote: > > >> Just because you use a particular URI as an rdf identifier doesn't > >> automatically mean that the rdf resource is equal to the web page > >> returned when you dereference the uri. > > > > > > No, it is equal to the resource a representation of which is returned > > when you dereference the URI. > > > > No, sorry, but that just isn't so. Let me quote from one of the RDF > Recommendations, the RDF Semantics document - > > "The semantics does not assume any particular relationship between the > denotation of a URI reference and a document or Web resource which can > be retrieved by using that URI reference in an HTTP transfer protocol, > or any entity which is considered to be the source of such documents." I read that as good separation between specs. 1. URIs provide a way to identify resources. 2. HTTP provides a way to GET or PUT representations of resources, or POST represetations into them. 3. RDF provides a way to describe relationships between resources identified by URIs, or between resources and literals. 4. Some mad scheme I think up on the way home tonight (RDS - REM Deprived Specification) does something else with resources, though it probably doesn't have much value when re-examined after some sleep. That HTTP, RDF and indeed RDS don't have anything to say about each other is dulce et decorum; but they both depend on the use of URIs to identify resources and when a URI is used in both HTTP and RDF then it sould identify the same resource (or it's a pretty lousy identifier, not an identifier at all really). -- Jon Hanna <http://www.hackcraft.net/> "…it has been truly said that hackers have even more words for equipment failures than Yiddish has for obnoxious people." - jargon.txt
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 18:32:06 UTC