- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 00:41:58 -0400
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Champion, Mike wrote:
>
> So I concede the point about "documents" but am not sure I understand how
> this relates to the original query from Micah Dubinko:
>
> "From the viewpoint of a web developer, it makes sense to differentiate
> between network-accessible and non-network-accessible resources. A trivial
> transform ('now:' -> 'http:') can provide additional details on the
abstract
> thing-that-means-whatever-the-DNS-owner-defines-it-to-be."
'trivial' is in the eye of the beholder. I behold not any software that can
so manipulate URIs -- all my software treats URIs either as opaque strings,
or as either equal or not equal given the rules of URI comparison.
>
> Or perhaps we're all agreeing that the "car problem" is something that the
> Semantic Web people will just have to figure out for themselves with
> metadata about the resources and representations rather than baking their
> worldview into the definition of a URI... and that the whole thing didn't
> have much practical significance for the Web as it currently exists?
> Likewise the namespace URI flamefest will be resolved with son-of-RDDL
> metadata retrieveable via the HTTP namespace URI? Sounds like the
> time-honored tradition of solving computer science problems by adding yet
> another layer of meta-ness has been followed :-)
>
That be an ontology :-)
Jonathan
Received on Monday, 7 October 2002 01:00:20 UTC