[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: URIs harmful

• To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: URIs harmful
• From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:09:23 -0700
• Cc: <bill.dehora@p...>,"Tim Bray" <tbray@t...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Thread-index: AcI0GlRPYlxnQbOWQlClA7vXoWsYfgAAkbsQ
• Thread-topic: URIs harmful

> 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").

Exactly!

This is similar to the facility in RDF.  If I use as subject:

http://www.w3.org qualityIs good
I mean the web page

But if I use something like
http://www.w3.org ownerIs _:anon1
_:anon1 qualityIs good
I am talking about the W3C
(the plain English for this is "The owner of http://www.w3.org has good
quality")

This is why it is so critical that people not be encouraged to say that
http://www.w3.org IS the W3C.  Because first, you already have a way to
indirectly identify the W3C, by saying "the owner of http://www.w3.org".
And if you start saying that http://www.w3.org IS the W3C, things that
are perfectly reasonable and logical before such as "the owner of
http://www.w3.org" become muddled and suspicious.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: URIs harmful
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: URIs harmful
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
• Next by Date: Re: DNS based URIs that don't imply access method
• Previous by thread: Re: URIs harmful
• Next by thread: Re: URIs harmful
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread