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

Re: #rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:18:49 -0500
Message-ID: <3B2A0B39.427636ED@w3.org>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> At 02:29 AM 6/15/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > > RDF absolutely has to make sense even outside the context of
> > > an enclosing document which can be given a uri. so ...
> >
> >So... what? That doesn't make any sense to me.
> >
> >An RDF document is an XML document. Each XML document
> >has a base URI (cf the infoset spec).
> 
> If this is  true, then it is not possible to transfer RDF data in transient
> protocol elements.

Why not? Transient things are resources too; you may or
may not specify what their URI is (in the case
of a mail messge, it would be mid:....); that doesn't mean
they don't have one.

> Which means that (say) the CC/PP spec, formulated *by design* as a *format*
> only for client capability data, cannot be regarded as a valid RDF application.

I don't see how that follows.

> >If you copy the contents from one
> >place in the web to another, you get a different XML
> >document, and hence a difference RDF document; if
> >it uses relative URI references, the resulting triples
> >may be different.
> >
> >This is by design.
> 
> OK.
> 
> But what is the status of information that is not "on the Web"?

Just think of everything as "on the Web". It's a matter
of perspective. There aren't any constraints in the
design of the Web that allow you to deduce a contradiction
from saying "every document is on the Web".

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 09:18:55 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:09 EDT