Re: URIs, used in RDF, that do not have associated documentation

On 3/31/12 2:19 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2012, at 7:24 PM, トーレ エリクソン wrote:
>> <rant>My problem is that people assume that the default case is that the
>> HTML document "resides" (I don't know a better word, hope you understand
>> what I mean) on the other end of the wire, when it might just exist
>> locally through the octet stream.</rant>
> <rant> My problem is that some people are incredibly sensitive to things like the piddling difference between a document versus a byte stream, when at the same time they are quite happy to treat them as being in the same category as galaxies and dead Roman emperors and Platonic abstractions. There ought to be a name for this, we could call it http tunnel vision: a condition where everything in every possible universe looks like a very small piece of network architecture. </rant>
Isn't the universe a network? :-)

> Pat
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fa and Platonic abstractions. x
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile



Kingsley Idehen	      
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Company Web:
Personal Weblog:
Twitter/ handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile:
LinkedIn Profile:

Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 20:53:33 UTC