W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > April 2004

Re: How does RDF/OWL formalism relate to meanings?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 23:22:31 -0400
Message-Id: <A1EE0522-8C30-11D8-9E7D-0003936A0B26@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
To: "John Black" <JohnBlack@deltek.com>

On Apr 11, 2004, at 11:04 PM, John Black wrote:
> In the RDF Semantics Recomendation it states:
> "1.2 URI references, Resources and Literals.
> This document does not take any position on the way that URI references
> may be composed from other expressions, e.g. from relative URIs or
> QNames; the semantics simply assumes that such lexical issues have been
> resolved in some way that is globally coherent, so that a single URI
> reference can be taken to have the same meaning wherever it occurs."
> - http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#urisandlit
> What is the effect of the language, "...so that a single URI
> reference can be taken to have the same meaning wherever it occurs."?
> How important is this assumption to RDF semantics?

Upon reflection, that isn't the best wording.

Roughly: In the *graph* there are only absolute URIs. There also are no 
contexts, so every node labeled with the same uri is equivalent.

*Between* graphs, however, URIs can behave quite differently (until you 
merge them).

I'd say it's pretty important :)

Note that URIs in literals (e.g., in literals of datatype xsd:anyURI) 
are exempt from this merging. So the above text isn't quite right if 
you try to read it in full generality.

Bijan Parsia.
Received on Sunday, 11 April 2004 23:23:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:02 UTC