- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:51:38 -0400
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- cc: "'Michael Mealling'" <michael@neonym.net>, www-tag@w3.org
> You make it harder than it has to be.
All I'm saying is: when it comes to building the Semantic Web, it
seems useful to know or be able to find out easily which URIs denote
response points. For the others it's nice to be able to find an
associated response point which is in some sense authoritative.
> A URI is a name.
Sure.
> It always names a thing.
More or less, in a way, roughly speaking.
> There is only ONE kind of URI and its definition
> is syntactic (provable properties).
There are many useful categories of URIs, just as there are many
useful categories of almost anything.
> An operation can consume a name and
> do something meaningful;
Sure, roughly speaking.
> meaning is always dependent
> on the system of which that operation is a
> functional member.
Then there is no interoperability, no communication between systems.
Communication (interoperability) relies on some kind of shared,
system-independent meaning.
> That's all.
I wish we could define all the useful points of consensus and
standardization around URIs in a few simple sentences, but there are
lots of issues that just doesn't address.
-- sandro
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 15:52:13 UTC