RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource")

It's an odd thing to do, but I don't see why you can't have e.g.

   <http://example.com/blargh> owl:sameAs "http://example.com/foo"^^xsd:anyURI .

Thus, <http://example.com/blargh> identifies the specific
URI "http://example.com.foo". Note that the above statement is not
the same as

   <http://example.com/blargh> owl:sameAs <http://example.com/foo> .

I.e. in the first case, <http://example.com/blargh> is identifying the
URI, the string conforming to the lexical constraints for URIs, and
is not (necessarily) identifying what the URI "http://example.com/foo"
itself identifies.

--

How having one URI identify another URI would be useful is unclear to me.

But in principle, a URI is a thing, and if a URI can identify anything,
then one URI can certainly identify another URI.

And having an RDF description of <http://example.com/blargh> available
allows one to clarify that it identifies a URI, which is quite clear
from the first RDF statement above.

Patrick


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:len.bullard@intergraph.com]
> Sent: 26 October, 2004 22:49
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere)
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information 
> resource")
> 
> 
> A mad thought:  if URIs identify resources (not representations), 
> and resources are abstract, do URIs only (put verb here) 
> other URIs?
> 
> len
> 
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> 
> To stress a particularly important point:
> 
> > There is nowhere any requirement or expectation that there be a 1:1
> > correspondence of information between an information resource and
> > any one of its possible representations.
>

Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 05:33:41 UTC