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

Re: Back to HTTP semantics

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:23:53 -0500
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B0601F2A-BD45-4E49-98E8-1389514EFD12@ihmc.us>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>

On Jun 15, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:

> 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.

I don't read them as making any such link. They are simply references  
to establish, in the usual way of references in written technical  
prose, what certain terms of art are intended to mean. So the RFC2369  
reference in RDFMT establishes, normatively, that when the body prose  
of RDFMT uses the phrase "URI", it means by that what RFC2369 means by  
it, and not, say, to refer to the University of Rhode Island. BUt that  
does not in itself establish the kind of link that you imply here,  
which has to do with RDFMT treating URIs as names which refer in some  
way established or influenced by RFC2369. In fact, RDFMT explicilty  
denies this, in its own normative prose. As far as RDF semantics is  
concerned, apart from  one or two corner cases (reification and  
seeAlso), the Web could not exist at all and nothing would be different.

> 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).

Those references don't constrain the RDF interpretation of URIs in any  
way at all. Not a smidgeon. In any case, RFC2369 simply does not speak  
of interpretations of URIs, or indeed of any semantic issues.

Pat

>
> 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
> --
>
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 15 June 2009 14:24:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 15 June 2009 14:24:49 GMT