I'd sworn off all URI semantics threads, but this one actually seems half-sane, and seems to reveal what I've always thought: that all sides are so close to each other in broad context that it is almost comic that this is such a controversial topic. > 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@f...] > > >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. My personal opinion: strict KR is better off ignored. It is impractical and many problems can be solved without resorting to it. It will be interesting to see what the influx of KR theorists will do to the character of RDF. The moment they try to turn RDF into a respectable KR language, I'm off. Remember that I can't even stand the Topic Maps insistence on virginal subject-matter identifiers, never mind strong KR. > 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. See, this is what just baffles me. Does anyone really think there is a technological useful difference between the terms "resource", "concept" and "thing"? Ave, humptus dumptus in muro sedens... Quid novi? -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com The open office file format - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/librar y/x-think15/ Python Generators + DOM - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/01/08/py-xml.html 4Suite Repository Features - https://www6.software.ibm.com/reg/devworks/dw-x4su ite5-i/ XML class warfare - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=6965
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format