W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2001

Re: Resolution for rdfms-fragments

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:46:44 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011208163856.0348b490@joy.songbird.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:46 PM 12/6/01 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>I've provided extensive quotes in this message to make my point. I hope it's
>helpful to other working group members.

Indeed...

I think there *is* an issue here, but I can't be sure exactly what/where it 
is.  I do think it's a point of co ntinuing confusion, if not outright 
disagreement.  I've yet to decide whether or not it will prove to be 
important in any practical sense, but the lack of clarity isn't helpful.

At the RDFIG F2F at the W3C plenary last year, I understood TimBL to agree 
that the set of "resources" referenced by RDF resource identifiers was not 
identical to the set of "resources" that are identifiable for possible web 
retrieval.   Maybe the correspondence between "web identifier URIs" and 
"RDF identifier URIs" is just a some-times convenient convention, no more?

Hmmm... what is/are the rdf:type(s) of the web resource accessed using 
<http://www.w3.org/>?

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
       __
      /\ \
     /  \ \
    / /\ \ \
   / / /\ \ \
  / / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2001 13:06:15 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:01 EDT