Lists Home |
Date Index |
Joshua Allen wrote:
> > This is dead wrong. Most people will make reasonable assumptions about
> > nature of a resource being identified based on its _representations_.
> You are describing the *web*, not the *semantic* web.
Why I said "most people".
> It's the difference between being able to yell "fire", or having to hold
> up a lit match. As long as you make identity be tightly-bound to a
> synchronous HTTP GET, then you don't have a semantic web, and you aren't
> identifying resources except in your imagination.
You are confusing the issues. I've never suggested that. To be crystal clear: no Semantic Web systems require parsing of a URI in order to draw conclusions about the URI. Some experimental systems _allow_ one to manipulate URIrefereces as strings, but the vast vast majority of "Semantic Web" systems treat URIs as opaque strings. That is to say the assertions about a URIreference are for the majority independent of any characters contained in the URIreference itself. As it currently stands, the "Semantic Web" in no way depends on being able to parse URIs. You are essentially claiming the opposite, but fail to support your claims with any data.