Jonathan Borden wrote: > So where does that leave us with respect to "document about weather in > Oaxala" vs "concept weather in Oaxala" -- it seems to depend on how we > define it. What prevents someone from saying: > > <http://weather.example.com/oaxaca> rdf:type web:document . > or *instead* saying: > <http://weather.example.com/oaxaca> rdf:type ex:weatherLocation . > > The SW treats URIs as opaque. The current Web doesn't care about what the > range of HTTP URIs is. What is the actual physical purpose of making this > distinction? > > Pat suggests that SW agents need to know. If so we can use assertions to > tell them. Yes. This is *exactly* the question I've been trying to ask, but haven't put it as clearly as Jonathan did. I just think that inferencing the range of a URI based on its scheme feels fragile and inflexible. Especially since the taxonomic division between what Jonathan calls a web:document and other kind of things feels like just one of a hundred interesting assertions one might want to make about whatever a URI names, and for damn sure we can't infer all of them from the syntax. -TimReceived on Monday, 28 July 2003 10:26:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:00 UTC