OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] many-to-many

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

If I misstate the following, anyone feel free to 
correct me.  I agree with you, Uche, but some 
background follows.

Simon says:

>> Bill de Hora posted something on www-tag that's very much worth
>> contemplating, even if you don't like it.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0301.html

From: Uche Ogbuji [mailto:uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com]

>I'm having a great deal of trouble discerning anything new here.  This seems 
>to me jsat a different stating of my own frequently-stated belief that 
>semantic laxness rather than rigor is essential to make URIs work.

<snip />

>I've always said the sky is not falling in my corner of the URI universe, and 
>precisely because I've pretty much always admitted the many-to-many idea, and 
>scoffed at the very concept of a truly universal identifier.

Because it is an issue that resurfaces again and again 
with respect to the definition of what a "resource" is. 
Apparently in the RDF formal definitions, it doesn't 
work because RDF or KR needs a stricter one to one 
mapping and URIs don't formally provide that for 
tangible objects:  just resources.

I agree with what you are saying but there exists 
definitional or formal confusion.  The TAG has been 
doing another round on this one.  It comes down 
to unique identification of a "resource" where a 
resource is "anything with identity" but resource 
is a term for a concept, and that concept braces 
representations.  At the end, the URI is naming 
a concept, not an object.  This works because the 
implementors understand that and where they see 
"resource" they use, as Joshua Allen says, a 
"hypertext dispenser" or one might say, a 
representation dispenser.  

The question becomes, who should fix what?  
Empirically, the URIs on the web work and 
implementors do the right thing.  In RDF, 
that does not seem to sufficient 
and then the argument becomes, what if anything 
should the RDF spec team fix in their specification?

I've no skinny in this game, but the arguments 
are very intriguing to follow.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS