W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org > July 2005

Re: Blank Nodes and SPARQL

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 15:06:46 -0400
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: DAWG Mailing List <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>, Ron Alford <ronwalf@umd.edu>, "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, "Eric Prud'hommeaux" <eric@w3.org>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org, Amy Alford <aloomis@glue.umd.edu>
Message-ID: <20050711190646.GB22161@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 01:46:46PM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> > Care to say why you claim that it doesn't make sense?
> 
> I don't understand the proposal. I don't understand how
> to relate it to what I know about logic and query languages
> (nor our charter, nor web architecture).
> These _!:foo things look like logical constants, to me;
> i.e. like URIs. But you say they're different. I don't
> understand how, except that the scope of _!:foo is
> private to a conversation between a client and a server
> (which seems to break webarch rule #1
>  http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-use-uris ).

There are violations of #pr-use-uris hereabouts, but I don't think this
solution is one of them. (It may respond to them, it may reflect them, but I
don't believe it *is* one of them...) Someone should yell at the FOAF & OWL
people about their violations of #pr-use-uris, which happen to make SPARQL
harder than it should be, IMO.

I'm curious why or how OWL-DL got past the relevant W3C review process when
it seems to clearly mandate violation of #pr-use-uris. (Well, according to
one reading of webarch.) And given that that is the state of the world and
the specs as we find them, would we be overly restricting ourselves by not
recognizing this systematic violation?

It's a bit of a crap situation we've inherited, and that stinks. Again, IMO.

Thanks for putting yr objections on record. I think they express a
defensible position, though I think there are other ones as well.

Kendall Clark
Received on Monday, 11 July 2005 19:08:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:49 GMT