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

Re: Proposed issue: What does using an URI require of me and my software?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:22:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030923.122228.32655309.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@isr.umd.edu
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org


On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 10:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I agree entirely with Bijan here.


To be more explicit.

1/ I believe that this group should try to identify the issues that need to
   be resolved.  

2/ I believe that there are only a small number of these issues.

3/ I believe that each of these issues have reasonable initial solutions
   that have already been proposed in the context of the semantic web.

4/ I believe that there are second, more general, solutions to many of the
   issues and that these have also been proposed in the context of the
   semantic web.

5/ I believe that general solutions to most (all?) of these issues have
   so far eluded the best attempts of humankind, and I am not optmistic
   that they will be solved in my lifetime.

6/ I believe that one of the issues that needs to be resolved is what
   information is implicit in the use of a URI reference with optional
   fragment identifier, particularly in the case where removing the
   fragment identifier results in the URI that can be used to retrieve an
   RDF (or OWL) document.

7/ I believe that the initial solution to the above issue is that there is
   no information implicit in the mere use of *any* URI reference,
   including URI references like rdf:type.

8/ I believe that a second solution to the above issue is that in some
   contexts there are a few URI references and (not a few) other constructs
   whose mere mention carries implicit information.  These URI references
   and constructs include rdf:type, rdfs:Class, Class(...),
   restriction(...), etc.

9/ I believe that a related issue is how to go beyond this potentially very
   sparse notion of implicit information.

10/ I believe that an initial solution to this related issue is that
    systems may choose to use the information obtained by retrieving a
    document (see document meaning issue) available at the URI that results
    from removing the fragment identifier from a URI reference.

11/ I believe that a second solution to this related issue is that the
    information implicit in owl:imports URI references or imports(...)
    constructs includes the information obtained by retrieving a particular
    document.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2003 12:22:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:15 GMT