From: Frank van Harmelen (Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl)
Date: 07/09/01
pat hayes wrote: > I would like to see the 'URI' point retained in the document. The > more the coreWG gets its node rubbed in this issue, the better :-) The URI point from Peter's notes stated: > - what is a URI? - syntax and semantics URI syntax is specified in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt by Tim et al. so I don't really see the substance of that part of the complaint. (The RFC describes the syntax that is common to all URI schemes, and the scheme-specific details of the syntax are/should be specified in other places, seems reasonable to me). Concering semantics, the same document says: "A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact string of characters for identifying an abstract or physical resource." I've always understood that URI's are simply globally unique names, (which I think is pretty much what Tim's RFC says). In terms of our model-theoretic semantics, are URI's not simply the elements of AD, and that's it? So I felt unsure as to what really the substance of Peter's point was. I also reread much of the discussion on URI's on rdf-logic, back in April (starting from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Apr/0261.html) but I found the whole discussion rather unilluminating (then, and now again), mostly by folks suffering from a severe case of use\mention confusion. Pat, can you expand on what exactly the coreWG should get its nose rubbed into? Frank. ----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST