Re: Obsoleting URIs [was: URIs and Unique IDs]

http://www.w3.org/2006/link#obsoletes does indeed raise problems:
according to its comment, "[The terms] are synonymous, but subject is
preferred to the object. Logically similar to owl:sameAs, but not
symmetric."

I'm not sure what "logically similar" implies, but if the terms are
synonymous, then
  :a link:obsoletes :b .
should imply
  :b link:obsoletes :a .
which makes link:obsoletes defacto symetrical.

In fact, links:obsoletes obviously applies to *the URI* of the resource
rather than the resource itself, so David's second proposal sounds more
appropriate. Unfortunately, it is not valid RDF...

A possible solution seems to rather use subproperties of
http://www.w3.org/2006/link#uri , e.g. :obsoleteUri and :preferedUri,
all ranging to xsd:anyURI .

 my 2ยข

  pa

On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 08:21 +1000, Peter Ansell wrote:
> 
> ----- "David Booth (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > Tim,
> > 
> > Looking at
> > http://www.w3.org/2006/link#obsoletes
> > I notice that no domain and range are specified, nor are there any
> > examples of use.  So if a URI http://example/new-term obsoletes a URI
> > http://example/old-term , and we have (in n3):
> > 
> >     @prefix : <http://www.w3.org/2006/link#obsoletes> .
> > 
> >     # Statement 1:
> >     <http://example/new-term>
> >         :obsoletes <http://example/old-term> .
> > 
> >     # Statement 2:
> >     "http://example/new-term"^^xsd:anyURI
> >         :obsoletes "http://example/old-term"^^xsd:anyURI .
> > 
> > Which of statement #1 or statement #2 would best illustrate the
> > intended usage of :obsoletes?
> > 
> > In my view (according to my understanding of the RDF semantics),
> > statement #2 would be correct.  Statement #1 would be incorrect (or at
> > least not what that author probably intended) because it is making a
> > statement about the resource *denoted* by the URI
> > http://example/new-term -- not a statement about the URI itself.
> 
> What would be incorrect about a third version the referred the current URI to the xsd:anyURI (or string) form of the obsolete URI? I didn't think RDF semantics made comments about the meaning of the URI but I haven't studied them in depth. In many cases it would be the actual resource denoted by the old URI that was obsoleted, as much trouble as that gives to people who believe the denoted resource to always be existentially somewhere.
> 
> Where are the semantics of N3 that enable statement 2 to exist defined btw as a matter of interest. I have just never seen an explanation of the meaning of "literal resource literal" triples in the context of an otherwise "resource resource resource/literal" RDF world.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Peter
>

Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 14:13:13 UTC