[topicmapmail] Meaning of URIs - ongoing debate on new W3C forum

[Murray Altheim]

Thomas B. Passin wrote:
> Murray Altheim wrote:
>> Jan Algermissen wrote:
>>
>>> This draft is somehow relevent to our discussion:
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/metaDataInURI-31.html
>>>
>>> "People and software making use of URIs assigned outside of their
>>>  own authority (i.e. observers) MUST NOT attempt to infer  properties
>>>  of the referenced resource except as licensed by relevant normative
>>>  specifications or by URI assignment policies published by the relevant
>>>  URI assignment authority."
>>
>> Sorry to waste bandwidth here, but that just makes me laugh. Gad, what
>> a silly bunch of ideas. Nothing like a little dictatorial hubris.
>>
>> You can't claim authority on interpretation. Full stop.
>
> Seems to me that the whole point of what the rdf people want to do is to 
> infer things about resources!

You do that in the syntax of a specific markup language, not in the
definition of URI itself.

URIs are identifiers -- just a form of name. And identifiers, like any
name, any word, are in the public domain, as are the words in a
dictionary. As such, they are defined by their users in the specific
interpretive context in which they are used, not by some central
authority. This is a common misunderstanding about dictionaries, that
they are prescriptive, not descriptive. Anyone who believes the
interpretation of a URI can have an "authority" doesn't understand
the nature of names and naming. That's like declaring that the American
Kennel Club authoritively controls the word "Dachshund".

What topic maps do is *allow* authors to provide the specific context
in which they use a name.

Murray

......................................................................
Murray Altheim                    http://kmi.open.ac.uk/people/murray/
Knowledge Media Institute
The Open University, Milton Keynes, Bucks, MK7 6AA, UK               .

   The world, Bush said, is now riven by "the clearest of divides:
   between those who seek order and those who spread chaos; between
   those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods
   of gangsters; between those who honor the rights of man and those
   who deliberately take the lives of men and women and children
   without mercy or shame. Between these alternatives there is no
   neutral ground."
   http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/09/24/MN298975.DTL

   Actions speak louder than words, and I think it's pretty clear
   which side of the divide Bush is on.