W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > January 2011

Re: Semantics of rdfs:seeAlso (Was: Is it best practices to use a rdfs:seeAlso link to a potentially multimegabyte PDF?)

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:48:43 +0000
Message-ID: <4D2EF4AB.9090003@webr3.org>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
CC: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Linked Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>
Dave Reynolds wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 06:29 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>> One *can* argue that the RDFS spec is definitive, and it is very loose in its definition.
> Loose in the sense of allowing a range of values but as a specification
> it is unambiguous in this case, as Martin has already pointed out:
> "When such representations may be retrieved, no constraints are placed
> on the format of those representations."

I'd suggest that the intended meaning is very ambiguous, primarily 
because it uses overloaded terms, the primary question is whether 
rdfs:seeAlso points to a resource (in the semweb sense, something named 
with a URI) which you are looking for statements about, or whether 
rdfs:seeAlso points to a resource (in the restweb sense, something named 
with a dereferencable URI giving access to a set of representations when 
dereferenced) which generically may have something to do with the subject.

In one case there's a built in expectation of RDF statements, and thus 
the meaning of "no constraints are placed on the format of those 
representations" is naturally constrained to the set of data formats 
which can contain RDF statements - and in the other case it's 
interpretation is wide open to conflicting usage as illustrated by this 
chain of emails.


Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 12:51:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:11 UTC