Lists Home |
Date Index |
Jonathan Borden wrote:
> In this case an SI is the same as a URI.
Let's make careful distinctions here. The SI is the *resource*
named by the URI, not the URI itself. Resources and URIs are
1-1, so this distinction isn't as important as it could be.
> If this is the case then, yes RDDL uses SIs. Steve Newcomb and I once had a
> discussion regarding the difference between a TM: "subject" and an RDF:
> "resource". My understanding was roughly that an RDF "resource" encompasses
> both a TM: "subject" as well as a "topic".
A subject is anything you can talk about, whether it is computer
accessible or not (for that matter, whether it exists or not --
"Don Quixote" is a perfectly good subject).
A subject can be identified (distinguished from other
subjects) in one of two ways:
1) It *is* a resource named by a URI
2) It is *indicated*, conventionally, by one or more resources
named by URIs. These resources are SIs.
So the subject "the W3C" is *identified* by the resource
whose URI is "http://www.w3c.org".
The different subject "the home page of the W3C" just *is*
the resource whose URI is "http://www.w3.org".
The subject "John Cowan" (me) could be identified by the
resources whose URIs are "mailto:email@example.com",
"mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org", and "http://www.ccil.org/~cowan".
A *topic* OTOH is an element in a topic map that corresponds with a
subject. In a properly merged topic map, topics and subjects are 1-1.
> Perhaps a URI published in a publically available RDDL document, makes a PSI
In effect, yes.
Not to perambulate || John Cowan <email@example.com>
the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel