RE: More on distinguishing information resources from other resources

well, see, I *do* know lots of things about the British Broadcasting
Corporation. I just don't know what *URI* to use to identify that
particular resource. I might reasonably choose, and
assert the following:

<chris sizemore> is employed by <>

but, then later, when the owner asserts the following:

<> is a resource of type <"portal homepage"> (crude
example, but I hope the point is valid)

the owner's assertion has rendered mine false, which I agree is
absolutely her/his prerogative. 

again, my question is not really about the effects of the compromise on
http-range-14; it is more about the knock-on effects of "a URI
identifies what the owner of that URI intends it to identify."

again, the difficulty I'm having conceptually is: how do *non-owners* of
a URI know, unambiguously, what resource a URI identifies? this URI: probably identifies
a particular photograph, but the owner might intend for it to identify
the Moon. and it'll be even more  difficult to learn/second-guess the
intentions of the URI owner with URIs that don't offer a representation
of some kind, because then there are very few clues.

and it sounds like a non-owner like myself CANNOT know, at least until
the owner starts publishing some assertions, which MIGHT begin to
disambiguate things a bit. if this is the case, then fair enough.

I'm probably not seeing the big picture clearly enough, but I'm
expecting this to be a difficult area for me over the next few years:

1) can *non-owners* of a URI *ever* know, with certainty, exactly what
resource a URI identifies? if not, then doesn't everyone have to
publish/own custom URIs for every concept about which they need to make
2) if I want to make assertions about a resource that I don't "own"
("love", for instance), what URI should I use to minimize mapping to
other URIs which also identify the resource? I'm confused about how
consensus around a URI is meant to develop.


--chris sizemore

> if I start making assertions about resource 
> " <> ", am I making 
> blind, potentially misleading or useless, assertions?

I am curious, how can you assert something that you don't know.  Also, I
think the motto of SW is "everyone can say anything about everything".
assertions are always going to be your viewpoint on that URI and won't
reflect the viewpoint URI's owner anyway.  Once again, "it doesn't

But I am just an observer, not a member, of the TAG.  So, take my
with a grain of salt. :-)


This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. 
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. 
Further communication will signify your consent to this.

Received on Friday, 1 July 2005 11:49:27 UTC