- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:05:40 -0800
- To: "'Bill de hÓra'" <dehora@eircom.net>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
While I can't nearly track the emails and depth of this debate, this seems like a fairly reasonable way to proceed. Yet again, congrats to TimB for seeing the difference between principles and practice, and suggesting a way forward. cheers, dave > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of > Bill de hÓra > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:06 AM > To: Tim Bray > Cc: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: TAG request: establish the relationship between URIs and > Resources is many to many > > > > Tim Bray wrote: > > > How about a slight recasting of that: > > > > 1. Different URIs can identify the same resource, in the > opinion of the > > creators and users of that resource. > > 2. The Web is designed on the principle that a single URI > identifies a > > single resource which does not change. In practice, this > principle is > > someties violated (insert list of nasty examples), and > software must > > often deal with the consequences, but such inconsistency is always > > damaging and SHOULD be avoided. -Tim > > Clearer, thanks. But abuse of this principle also affects > specifications such as RDF, as well as web software. For example it > will mean we have to merge RDF graphs with great caution before > inferences can be made and we have to be careful about RDF queries > that span multiple graphs. > > If the rdf-wg were happy to add words to the primer about how > breaking this principle interplays with the function that determines > the denotation of a URI, that would help greatly. That is, when > merging two RDF graphs, be aware that a URI used in graph 1 might > not have the same denotation as it does in graph 2. > > Bill de hÓra > > >
Received on Friday, 24 January 2003 15:17:10 UTC