On 13 Jun 2011, at 16:04, Christopher Gutteridge wrote: > I can then detect the problem, as it implies the URI is both a document and a > group and things can't be both.
Things can't be both, but perhaps people use URIs in practice to refer to both. If seen that way, what you call a problem isn't a bug but a feature. > I can detect the issue, but then what? There'll be lots of situation where > the ambiguity is absolute. eg. > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_%28Michelangelo%29> > dc:creator<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo> . > > Did he make the statue or the webpage? Yes, there are properties (lots of DC, parts of FOAF) where it's really hard to tell what they apply to. The problem is with metadata properties that apply to web pages as well as other creative works. Perhaps here's where we will see distinct vocabularies emerge -- some that are explicitly intended for annotating web pages, and some that are explicitly intended for annotating other kinds or things. This still leaves us with plenty of ambiguity (for annotating a news article, do I use web:creationDate or thing:creationDate?), but that ambiguity manifests itself in a much narrower area that is well-covered by things like FRBR and people who have been thinking about metadata for a looong time. We don't have to face the information resource vs other resource question every single time we want to add a little bit of RDFa to a web page. > I think the other common conflation we'll get is between places & legal > entities. eg. "The Royal Society", has both members and a lat/long and people > will naturally muddle them, but we'll need a way to unpick that. (I assume) Perhaps. This, however, has nothing to do with httpRange-14. Best, Richard
