W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > October 2003

Re: The RDF Approach to Indicating Language-In-Use

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:58:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20031029.165859.128875340.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: sandro@w3.org
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: The RDF Approach to Indicating Language-In-Use 
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:44:58 -0500

> > The *only* aspects of all of this that fall into the purview of the
> > Semantic Web are an importing mechanism and the translation from a name to
> > a namespace address.
> Is owl:imports satisfactory as an importing mechanism?   (That is,
> does OWL going to REC get you part 1?)

As far as I am concerned, owl:imports is sufficient.  However, OWL going to
REC doesn't solve everyone's problems.  In particular, RDF is left without
an importing mechanism.

I do agree that it would be useful to import parts of documents, but I
don't think that this is essential.

> As for the translation: do you want to end up with a namespace string,
> or with some document fetched over the web?   In either case, does it
> work to just follow normal web retrieval: chop off the fragment string
> & follow any 3xx redirects you get?

Well, there are two parts to this, of course.  Both are necessary to get
something useful, but only the first part (name to address) is specific to
the Semantic Web, and even that part looks a lot like the standard web
mechanism.  (I do not know much about going from a URI to a document
(including content negotiation).  From what I do know it looks to be
sufficient for the short term.)

>    -- sandro

Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 16:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:01 UTC