- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:48:22 -0500
- To: "'Joshua Allen'" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, Bill de hOra <dehora@eircom.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
It merely needs to state the role of the interpretant with regards to establishing meaning. The rest of it is I think, as Jonathan suggests, technique with regard to interpreting the media type. URIs don't have meaning beyond naming the association between the authority and the assertion that a relationship exists. The system architecture is simply a way of saying that where such a relationship is stated by the assignment of the URI, one can, if the URI is assigned and processed correctly (no spoofing, no redirecting, no futzing), that the same relationship is always being signified regardless of point of view of the observer. A URI is like the speed of light as a constant: a systemic way of keeping the information space from collapsing because one cannot ascertain the identity (singularity) of a given particle or location with certainty, so it confers an artificial certainty. If as Fielding says, URIs are the words of the web, then we should understand that as the linguists say, words have no meaning. I apologize for my use of metaphors. I am a good sheepdog but a lousy shepherd. len -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com] > "The meaning of a URI(ref) as intended by its authority is defined by the > set of assertions obtained when the URI is referenced. Do you mean "dereferenced"? > When the media type of such a representation is: application/rdf+xml, then > the meaning of the represented URI is given by the graph as per the RDF > model theory." While this is one *possible* scenario that could occur, there are many other ways that meaning can be associated with a URI. It's debatable whether this particular approach ever stands a chance of succeeding. I strongly recommend that TAG avoid endorsing any particular approach to associating meaning with URIs. I suggest sticking with the simple affirmation that URIs *do* have meaning. Assignation of meaning to symbols is a complex and fluid social process (in which ownership of a DNS server can play a big part, of course). The Web Architecture doesn't need to codify this process, and risks looking foolish by trying.
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 16:49:08 UTC