- From: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>
- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:57:10 +0100
- To: "'Phil Dawes'" <pdawes@users.sourceforge.net>, "'David Menendez'" <zednenem@psualum.com>
- Cc: "'Daniel O'Connor'" <daniel.oconnor@gmail.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> > On the other hand, if we want to talk about a particular > HTML document > we obtained by dereferencing > <http://www.cnn.com/>, then we need to say > > something like this: > > > [ a ex:HTMLDocument ] ex:obtainedFrom "http://www.cnn.com/". > > > > The fun part[1] is that the document is itself a resource > and could be > given its own URI (perhaps > <http://example.com/pagesIveDownloaded/12345> > > or > <cid:123456@example.com>). > > > > But note that this is not special to the web - it's no > different to having a URI that identifies Jon Hanna on 20th > Sep (before he grows his hair and wairs mostly yellow). > (perhaps http://www.hackcraft.net/jon/on/20040920) Well yes, I think that this is the point in saying you can have a URI for a representation or "conceptual document" or anything that is special to the web and remain compatible with the URIs-identify-anything view. (I've been jokingly quoting Freud on cigars here, I'll stop though as it wasn't even that funny the first time) There are no valid counter-examples against the URIs-identify-anything view. The URI-space is large, it contains multiitudes. (P.S. Just to be awkward, since I'm ill and don't really feel like rubbing a sharp blade across my skin or doing laundry http://www.hackcraft.net/jon/on/20040920 has hair and isn't wearing black)
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 11:57:21 UTC