Lists Home |
Date 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").
This is largely a matter of personal preference. It is *precisely* the reason
I think Topic Maps gets it wrong. I don't think some global abstraction of a
"public subject" is any more a trueness of the W3C than their Web page is.
Therefore, TM introduces a whole level of indirection and complexity for no
gain whatsoever, IMO.
I've gone back and forth endlessly with TM folks on this and I've concluded
that liking the subject/occurrence/etc. quiddities is a matter of taste.
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 -
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/libra
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF -