- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:42:48 -0400
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- Message-ID: <506C9538.3030603@openlinksw.com>
On 10/3/12 2:54 PM, David Booth wrote: > 1. Ambiguity is a fact of life. In spite of the AWWW's > statement that "By design, a URI identifies one resource", > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#id-resources ambiguity of > reference is inescapable. This is well established in > philosophy, and basically boils down to the fact that when > descriptions are used to define things, it is always possible > to make finer distinctions than a description anticipated. Are we still using "identifies" when denotes appears to be much clearer re. this particular matter? A URI can denote anything. An HTTP URI can denote anything. An HTTP URL specifically denotes a Web document. A Resource is the Content associated with a Web document. A Document is comprised of Content. Linked Data demonstrates how you can use *indirection* to denote *anything* using an HTTP URI. In this usage context said URI resolves to associated content at a Web address/location (URL). Note, *indirection* may be explicit (303 redirection) or implicit (via use of a fragment id or hash). Links: 1. http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2012-07/msg00190.html -- a related discussion on the ontolog forum that actually reached amicable conclusion re. this matter. -- 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 Wednesday, 3 October 2012 19:43:10 UTC