Re: URIs quack like a duck

"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote:

> I assume the namespace has an existence independent of the name we give it,
> even if that name is fixed forever.  The name is what we use to refer to it
> just as you, John Cowan, have an existence independent of the name "John Cowan"
> (which probably isn't unique, but that's another story).

Just so.

(For other John Cowans, see http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/notme.html)

> I'll admit to not being as up on RDF as I should be.  But modulo my possible
> misunderstanding, couldn't RDF just refer to the namespace by its name, with the
> assumption that when we use the name we're referring to the namespace
> that lies behind it?

RDF is only capable of making statements about things that are identified
by a URI, and requires knowledge of that URI.  In other words, an RDF statement
can't be about me unless I have a URI such as
"mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com" or "urn:x-us-ssi:135-50-censored".

>  The name in that context, even within RDF, would be viewed as it is within the
> namespace spec itself: as an uninterpreted string that merely serves to label
> something unambiguously.

RDF does not make statements about names, but about resources (which must have
associated URIs).  For a name (= character string) to be a resource, some
convention must exist such as:

	1) the resource is a data resource containing the name, or
	2) the resource is whatever resource is identified by the name,
		treating the name as a URI reference.

The advantage of the "data:," prefix trick is that it gives a resource for
every name, while keeping the string-equality rule for equating names.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 14:41:05 UTC