Lists Home |
Date Index |
>Bent Rasmussen scripsit:
> > - "Does the URI 'http://www.w3.org' identify an
> > organisation called W3C or a location on the Web?"
>For informal purposes, it can refer to either, just as informally
>I can be called either "John Cowan" or "mailto:email@example.com".
Alright, so let's move to formal:
>For RDF/TM purposes, when it is necessary to make rigorous
>distinctions, then there are two possible answers:
>- A URI means what the owner of the authority-part (DNS name) says it
> means. On this basis, "John Cowan" is a non-URI name of *me*,
> whereas "mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org" is a URI name of *one of my
So you're saying that the owner of "ccil.org" gets to choose what
is? It could be a solar system if they preferred, because they're the
authority -- regardless of what mailto is intended for! In other words:
intent is irrelevant because it is has no substance in the knowledge
representation system; although it might have, i.e. there are statements
about what the type of resources identified in the TEL scheme is.
>- The meaning of a URI must be inferred from the statements made
> about it. In this case we would have to look to what has been said.
Alright, so we can use rdf:type to indicate the type but then what about the
context, the name space, should we get "used" to things like
<http://example.com/bookx> <http://example.com/publisher> <tel:2...>
<tel:2> rdf:type ex:Person
and just say that name spaces and their intended range is irrelevant? It may
work but still seems a bit nicer to align the inferred meaning of a resource
with the meaning allowed by the name space. But perhaps that's just extra
work that nobody needs.
>John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
>To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There
>are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the
>that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
> --_The Hobbit_
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.