From: Dan Brickley (Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk)
Date: 07/09/01
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Frank van Harmelen wrote: > 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? That's the basic idea. However there are some remaining areas of debate surrounding URIs. For example: can the same URI string name a different resource at different times? Can it (sometimes) fail to refer, etc. These aren't RDF Core's particular problem, but they're the sort of question that RDF implementors raise. Dan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST