Re: What is at the end of the namespace?

> > It also confuses me a bit that people don't accept that
> > representations of resources can be resources themselves,
>
> They can't if you wish to make statements about both.

I agree with that, in a flat context on the Semantic Web.

[...]
>    <rdf:Description rdf:about="mailto:patrick.stickler@nokia.com">
>       <foo:hasEmailAddress
>             rdf:resource="mailto:patrick.stickler@nokia.com">
>    </rdf:Description>

If you define "hasEmailAddress" to mean "the person who owns this
email box has the email box..." then sure, that would be fine. It
would also win the "stupid property of the year" award :-) And I know
that yor retort is going to be "well, if 'mailto:' URIs necesarily
identify mailboxes, don't HTTP URIs necessarily identify chunks of
data over HTTP?", so I'll save you the effort. Instead of replying
directly, I'll ask you: would it be O.K. to use an HTTP URI as an
email address? HTTP URIs can be POSTed to, so why not? GET would
retrieve information about the mailbox, not the email itself...

> > [...] you can't restrict some sound Web architecture on
> > fantastical myths that have very little sound basis whatsoever.
>
> Are they fantastical because you don't subscribe to them?

Well, I'm not really a solipsist, but I can only speak for myself, and
yes: I think they're fantastical, I don't subscribe to them. However,
that opinion is based partly upon the reactions to your opinion by
others, so it's not totally closed-world :-)

> I've never argued that you *can't* use HTTP URIs to denote
> abstract or non-web-accessible resources, only that you
> *shouldn't* [...]

O.K., that seems like the end of the discussion. Thanks for chatting
:-)

I look forward to your UR* stuff.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .

Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 10:49:45 UTC