- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 09:09:09 -0600
- To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Perhaps where one sees resource, if one substitutes "virtual signified", it is easier to understand. I don't think it changes one wit the way the system works. On the other hand, if the problem here is conflicting models, it is difficult to conceive of the semantic web and the traditional web as the 'same' system; they appear to be systems that share signficators and indirectly, signifieds. For that to work in the normative RFCs, the URI RFC needs to be syntax only, then other RFCs or specificationd deal with the affective model. len From: Sandro Hawke [mailto:sandro@w3.org] If we back off that assumption and allow there to be multiple ways for a URI to point to things, without unduly blessing one over all others, we're okay. And this mess becomes an RDF issue not a web architecture issue. RDF works fine if it just becomes explicit about which way or ways each URI is being used. All we need from webarch is to have them not pester us too much about using URIs to point to different things in different ways.
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 10:10:05 UTC