[
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.
len
|
