[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Joshua Allen scripsit:
> Not really. The HTTP-accessible *representations* that people might
> want, could include representations of:
>
> * a view through a webcam belonging to a gyros vendor on the beach
> * a map of the beach, highlighting particular facilities
> * opinions and reviews about the beach
> * recent news about the beach
> * weather reports from the beach
>
> None of those ARE the beach, they are simply things ABOUT the beach.
> They all deserve to have their own identity.
This is where Topic Maps, IMHO, get it right. A topic map requires that
whenever you point to a resource, you specify whether you are pointing to
the *resource itself* (thus "http://www.w3.org";, considered as a reference
to a resource, means "the home page of the W3C"), or you are using the
resource to designate something else by convention, a so-called "subject
indicating reference" (thus "http://www.w3.org";, considered as a subject
indicator, might mean "the W3C").
One has to be careful about subject indicators: a URI such as
http://www.hamlet.org/hamlet_acts.html is (considered as a resource
reference) simply the table of contents for a specific Internet
edition of _Hamlet_. But as a subject indicator, it might mean
this edition of _Hamlet_, or the play _Hamlet_, or the character Hamlet.
If people don't agree on the meaning of subject indicators, bad things.
Hence the desire to publish (and therefore standardize) them.
--
Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known; John Cowan
Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone; jcowan@reutershealth.com
Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind; www.ccil.org/~cowan
Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind. --Tao 33 (Bynner)
|
