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

RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the questio

• To: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jborden@a...>, <xml-dev@l...>, "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• From: "Didier PH Martin" <martind@n...>
• Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:34:43 -0400
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <026d01c23c09$000e8900$0201a8c0@n...>

Hi Jonathan,

Jonathan said:
I think what is needed is some way to integrate the semantics associated
with a URI as provided by REST vs. that associated with RDF. Once that
has
been done -- it hasn't yet -- we will have a real foundation for the
"Semantic Web".

Didier replies:
Yes!!! 

Jonathan said:
In the meantime it might be confusing to people that there might be
_different ways_ to associate semantics with a URI. This is true. Given
two
methods, they _might_ disagree. So it remains up to the "owner" of the
URI
not to be contradictory. In any case if the owner of a URI is
contradictory -- by whatever mechanism or mechanisms the contradictions
arise -- we have no way to make sense of what such a URI "means".
Contradictions are logically false, and unresolved contradictions in the
meaning of a URI, means that the URI has no meaning. That might be true
of a
namespace name, or a URI used to for any other purpose.

Didier replies:
Exactly. This is why we have to push hard and tirelessly to get this
spec fixed and made coherent with the vision of the semantic web.

Cheers
Didier PH Martin

• References:
  • Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: maps
• Next by Date: Iceberg development (was Re: maps)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Next by thread: RE: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread