John Cowan wrote: >>(a) have a built-in way to disambiguate between what the resource "is" >>and what it's "about" >>(b) use different names. >> >>I prefer (b), and would encourage people to use something like >>http://www.heritage.org/Shakespeare for the person and the URI above for >>the picture. > > The trick with (b) is that you are then impaled on this dilemma: > > (b1) Dereferencing "http://www.heritage.org/Shakespeare" returns something, > (b2) Dereferencing "http://www.heritage.org/Shakespeare" returns nothing. > > With (b1) you now have yet another document and have to bifurcate again; > with (b2) you get a lot of surprised people who dereference an http: URL > and get nothing, just like with namespaces. Given this choice, I like > (a) better. I must be missing a circuit in my brain - lots of smart people worry a whole lot about this cluster of problems and they've just never affected me - maybe a function of the kind of application I write. For example, neither (b1) nor (b2) give me heartburn. If I have a resource that I claim represents Shakespeare (probably for the purpose of making statements about him) then if dereferencing returns something, it better plausibly be a representation of the late bard. For example, it could be the content of the .jpg file. If I claim that the URI .../Shakespeare.jpg identifies a picture of some particular person, then any representation should be of the picture. This seems to be the same thing that Simon is talking about - I could write an RDF assertion along the lines of http://.../Shakespeare.jpg IsARepresentationOf http://.../Shakespeare which seems perfectly sensible. Anyhow, what would you propose for (a)? -Tim
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