W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > June 2009

RE: Back to HTTP semantics

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:49:27 +0000
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C832D2464419@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Hello Jonathan,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-awwsw-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-awwsw-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Rees
> Sent: 15 June 2009 02:38
> To: David Booth
> Cc: Pat Hayes; AWWSW TF
> Subject: Re: Back to HTTP semantics
> 
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:59 AM, David Booth<david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hold on, that's *way* overstated.  While Pat may not agree that URI
> > ownership gives *absolute* authority in establishing the referent of a
> > URI -- and I agree with that, as described in "The URI Lifecycle in
> > Semantic Web Architecture" http://dbooth.org/2009/lifecycle/ -- it is
> > quite clear that URI ownership at least has a very strong *influence*.
> 
> This is an empirical question that would be difficult to evaluate. By
> "matters" I probably meant something more rigorous than what you
> thought I meant. To conclude that webarch "identification" ought to be
> aligned with RDF "interpretation" requires reading between the lines,
> since it's never explicitly stated normatively for HTTP or AWWW
> (neither of which talk about RDF) or in RDF semantics (which has no
> reference to the web). If someone takes on some RDF as a result of
> nose-following, they probably do so because they choose to, not
> because any spec they've seen tells them to.

So... what effect does a normative reference from the RDF specs to the URI spec have?

	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#ref-2369
	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#ref-uris
	http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#ref-uri

FWIW: I have always taken those references as establishing the link between URI as opaque names as presented directly in the RDF specs., and what one might regard as the 'normal' interpretation of URIs on the web. Without such normative references I'd agree that there is nothing to drive such a conclusion... but with them... Roughly speaking I'd regard the normative references as constrainting the RDF intepretation of URIs with the 'normal' web interpretation of URIs (at least for those that have the latter).

Maybe I misunderstand the effects or intended effects of normative reference.

<snip/>

> Jonathan
> 
> > --
> > David Booth, Ph.D.
> > Cleveland Clinic (contractor)
> >
> > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
> > reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.

Stuart
--
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 08:50:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 15 June 2009 08:50:36 GMT