Re: URIs: resources and contradictions was: Re: httpRange proposed text

Michael Mealling wrote,
> Given any context (belief system) you can say that it 'means'
> anything you want it to mean. The issue is that there are two
> important sets of contexts: one is what the authority that owns/has
> change control over "www.w3.org" says is the context and the other is
> what others say that believe about it. Its the difference between
> opinion and identity. The W3C has the ability to say what "is" while
> anything said by anyone else is merely opinion. The difference is
> very important.

Agreed ... but how does that help us precisely? It's one thing to assert 
that the domain registrant has the final word on the matter, it's quite 
another to give that assertion any teeth in practice. If there are 
millions of people using http://www.w3.org/ to refer to a document, and 
yet more millions using it to refer to a web site, then what on earth 
are you proposing to do to get those millions to coordinate on a single 
unambiguous interpretation? Legislation? Cattle prods?

REST is comparatively safe here, because the interpretation of URIs in 
REST is determined by RFC 2616 and manifested in a comparatively small 
number of implementations. But RDF offers anyone the capability of 
making assertions using any URI. Nb. _any_ URI, not just URIs for which 
the asserter is the authority ... restricting the range of allowable 
assertions to only those involving URIs for which the asserter is 
authoratitive or has coordinated with the authority would dramatically 
limit the scope and usefulness of RDF.

It's open vs. closed again. In a genuinely open system there is no 
authority which can practically be appealed to.

> > I know what a document is, and I know what a web site is, but I've
> > really no idea what a resource which might "mean" one or the other
> > is, unless it's just an artefact of a semantic theory. Or try it
> > again with another example: I know what a document is, and I know
> > what a car is, but I've no idea what a resource which might "mean"
> > one or the other is, again, unless it's just an artefact of a
> > semantic theory.
>
> Its an artifact of someone trying say "this is what _I_ think this
> means" and "this is what the owner says it means". If you don't make
> a distinction based on authority then its all just vague assertions
> with no concreteness on which to base anything.

Which authority?

Cheers,


Miles

Received on Sunday, 4 August 2002 11:35:42 UTC