RE: [httpRange-14] What do HTTP URIs Identify?

> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com] 
>
> But if you have to tolerate ambiguity, the axiom 
> is nothing more than a best practice and the 
> reliability of the system just dropped a notch.

That's right. I don't believe this axiom is tolerable for the scale the
Semantic Web wants to work on, any more than backlinks were tolerable
for the current Web, and it will need to be softened or qualified. I
know Joshua Allen and Tim BL (at least!) aren't going to appreciate that
belief, but I don't see any way past it, short of calling everyone who
breaks it an idiot, or radically reducing what we'll be able to say, or
insisting that everyone is really talking about the same thing when they
use a URI, no matter what they were saying, which is what I understand
Jonathan Borden was saying in another post (personally I find that very
bizarre, but since very little Jonathan says is bizarre, it I probably
just didn’t get it). On the other hand if we accept a priori ambiguity,
we can get on with the job of vastly reducing it...

> 
> What is wrong with a two level system?

Nothing, except I imagine the levels will not be levels as in a semantic
web layer cake but more quality of information levels.

regards,
Bill de hÓra

..
Propylon
www.propylon.com 

 

Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 12:41:25 UTC