- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:26:39 -0600
- To: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN wrote: > > Sandro Hawke wrote: > > The problem: How do you talk about something when you don't already > > share with your audience a common identifier for it? > > > > Proposed answer: Find a document which > > - can be identified to your audience > > - contains some text which, in the document, identifies > > the thing in a way your audience understands. You can generalize that to: you describe it in terms that you and your audience already have in your shared context. > > Then identify the thing with the pair (document identifier, text of > > thing-identifier). And if we use URI-references as document > > identifiers, we have a pretty good system. (URIs would work, but > > it's easier to find a unique identifier in big documents if we allow > > fragments.) > > soubd idea yes, I think so. > > Examples: I can be identified quite clearly as: "The thing called > > 'Sandro Hawke' on the web at http://www.w3.org/People/Sandro/". > > And a "URI-reference" can be identified as "The thing called > > 'URI-reference' in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt". > > > > I think people have been trying to approximate this by using > > identifiers like > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt#URI-reference > > but that's a poor approximation because that construct already has a > > different meaning. > > It *may* already have some meaning, depending on the mime type of the data retrieved through the prefixed URI. But I think using fragments is a natural way of implementing your idea. I agree. > I guess some more appropriate syntax would be > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt#hrd(URI-reference) > > where "hrd" stands for "human readable description". > > Of course, according to RFC-2396, a fragment identifier's meaning depends on the mime type ; > can we define a fragment class valid over mime type */* ? > > Pierre-Antoine Champin Anyway... the main point of this message is: I've been studying context logic; in particular: the corefer() thingy on p.23 of Guha's 1991 Stanford PhD thesis, Contexts: A Formalization and Some Applications http://www-formal.stanford.edu/guha/guha-thesis.ps <- http://www-formal.stanford.edu/guha/index.html seems like an interesting way of thinking about this issue. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 18:26:47 UTC