[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > > Most people wouldn't want to interact with beaches via http.
> >
> > But a representation of the beach might be useful to some.
>
> 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.
Sorry, Joshua, but you don't get to arbitrate this. Each person is free to
decide that those things *are* the beach, if he chooses. After all, "the
beach" is an abstraction of numerous things that people conceive.
The supposed problems with URIs only come about when people try to insist (as
you are) that their own interpretation of what a resource is, is the only
allowable one. As I said, the value of URIs, as with all human identifiers,
is a *decoupling* of signifier and signified.
BTW, "deserve" is a very odd word to mix into an ontological discussion. Is
this a tincture of Immanent Will creeping into the discussion? <duck/>
--
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra
ry/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF -
http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A
1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC
|
