• To: 'Bart Schuller' <schuller+xml-dev@l...>, algermissen@a...
• Subject: RE: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:51:00 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Which means RDF introduces ambiguity.  If a URI is opaque, 
it is always possible for the writer to introduce ambiguity 
when it relies solely on URIs (the URI isn't a resource 
so it's information semantics aren't available).

URI space parallels information space in a Euclidean definition.

len


From: Bart Schuller [mailto:schuller+xml-dev@l...]
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 2:38 PM

It makes no sense because it isn't true. It explicitly *DOES* use URIs
in precisely these two ways. See for example

http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#def-subject-indicator


Now from what I've read about RDF it seems that too uses URIs in these
different ways, but fails to make the distinction, so you can never be
sure whether a statement talks about a document or about the subject of
the document.

• Prev by Date: Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Next by Date: Re: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Previous by thread: RE: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Next by thread: RE: Are URIs Resources? (WAS RE: Re: Non-infoset)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread