[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> Patrick Stickler wrote:
>
>
> > But is not the representation of a resource a resource? How
> > do we then refer to both "the Eiffel Tower" and a "description
> > of the Eiffel Tower" if they have the same URI.
>
>
> Exactly my point throughout this thread.
Again, the "data:" scheme is designed to do exactly this. For example
suppose the URI:
http://example.org/TheEiffelTower
which when GET'd returns:
"this is a description of the Eiffel Tower"
and the URI (modulo escaping):
"data:text/plain,this is a description of the Eiffel Tower"
>
>
> > If a URI can name everything, then every thing should have
> > its own URI, if it is thus named.
>
> Yes.
I am not sure a URI can name anything (perhaps they can, but that is a
debate I don't have much vested interest in). That is the sort of statement
that leads to logical paradoxes. To be really precise about these sorts of
semantic definitions, model theories, rather than colloquial prose, is
probably a good idea. Hence the effort to clarify RDF 1.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ . I think that it is a good idea to either
write specifications either like a lawyer or else like a logician.
Jonathan
|
