- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 20:55:13 -0700
- To: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Cc: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, www-tag@w3.org, pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
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. -Tim
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 10:26:59 UTC