- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:58:56 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4F79CCC0.2050004@openlinksw.com>
On 4/2/12 9:06 AM, Larry Masinter wrote: > I said >> There are no "owners" of URIs here. >> There is no process of "mint" here. >> There is no notion of "resource" and "representation" here. >> There's no need to talk about two resources being the "same", or using "different" URIs for the "same" resource. >> There's no separation of "information resource" vs. "general resource". > ... to which I got some use cases where these terms, processes, distinctions might make sense. > > But by "here" I meant "in my story ". I am not denying there are circumstances where you would naturally like to use that terminology, but rather that there are enough use cases where the those terms and distinctions do not make sense, and it isn't necessary to reference those concepts. > > So spare me the use cases where you think "mint" makes sense, where you can argue that there is someone who really does seem to "own" a URI, where there is a clear distinction between "resource" and "representation", etc. > > Larry > > > When publishing Linked Data via a Linked Data oriented server. DBpedia is a live example. The server is *minting* URIs to serve a very specific purpose :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Monday, 2 April 2012 15:59:23 UTC