- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:53:37 +0300
- To: "ext Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>, "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, "'Michael Mealling'" <michael@neonym.net>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> > There are many useful categories of URIs, just as there are many > > useful categories of almost anything. > > Yes, and one of the reasons we need the SW is we don't have a good way > to talk about them. At the level of the basic Web Architecture, there > is only one kind of URI. I don't think this is the right way to approach this. RDF recognizes no classes of URIs. And need not. What we have are classes of resources. And yes, we need standardized, fundamental ontologies to reflect key classes of resources relevant to the Web and Semantic Web architectures, and which also relates those two architectures. Hence my proposed strawman as a (surely imperfect and insufficient) starting point towards that end. URI schemes should relate to HOW one interacts with the resources denoted, not reflect any inherent properties of the resources denoted. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 06:53:58 UTC