- From: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 00:30:58 +0200
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: Reto Bachmann-Gmür <rbg@talis.com>, "Lynn, James (HP Software)" <james.lynn@hp.com>
... and they say this mailing list has been "replaced" (which sounds like dead) ;-) ... Thank you for joining, James, I'm well aware that this is not exactly a new topic. Hope it doesn't bore people to death right now. Am Montag, den 27.08.2007, 17:17 -0400 schrieb Lynn, James (HP Software): > When we speak of a URI refering to something, we must consider in what context we are speaking. > In the HTTP context, i.e. what does a server return, it refers to a context. > In the RDF context, i.e. what is the meaning of the URI in an RDF statement, a URI is a string of characters which uniquely identifies some "thing", some concept, such as a person, a book, the color "green", or in some cases a website or resource on the web. For me this means: A URI is like a word in a language we hardly understand. The word has no definition as such - if you don't know what it means, you have to look it up in a dictionary. We can look up http URIs to see what they refer to. If they return a 200/OK and a PDF (.HTML, .GIF, .OGG), then that's what the URI "means". These are the easy words in this language. The fun begins when the URI doesn't resolve to anything, returns a 303 or is a hash-URI that returns a RDF/XML-document. Then we can assume the URI is not about a document but about something else - something that we might learn more about by reading associated RDF-files. Thats how I try to think of it; it makes things relatively unambiguous, though sometimes more complicated (see my initial examples), but its obvious that quite a lot of people who author RDF out there have quite a lot of different approaches. Mixing those seems to be a challenge... Regards, Oskar
Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 22:31:16 UTC