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

Re: Draft Partitioning

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:36:48 -0700
Message-ID: <3B2AB830.220090E9@db.stanford.edu>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Aaron Swartz wrote:
> On Friday, June 15, 2001, at 06:49  PM, Sergey Melnik wrote:
> > IMO reification has a chance to be introduced as a pure model feature
> > not intrinsically bound to any vocabulary
> Why do you want this? Is there a reason every RDF application
> has to understand reification? I hope not, because that will
> make RDF very confusing.

I did not mean to declare reification a mandatory feature. Rather, I'd
define it as a separate "layer", so that whoever needed reification
could rely upon a recommended practice.

> > In this perspective, it would not go under 'vocabularies'. Similarly,
> > namespaces and literals are another two model features that might go
> > into one of the layers in the 'core'.
> To my knowledge, you still have not explained how namespaces fit
> into the model. If I missed this somewhere, please send me a
> pointer. I'm quite curious what you mean.

In fact, some time ago I mentioned "Slim RDF" on the RDF Interest list
There, namespaces were introduced as part of the model. The reason
behind it that currently, given a resource, applications cannot
determine the namespace of the resource (they can only guess by looking
for "#" or last "/"). Several people who used the "RDF API" for
implementing editors for RDF Schemas (including Michael Sintek who
collaborated on Protege) complained that the API did not offer a way of
reliably determining the namespace of a resource. Since a year or so,
the API supports that feature, effectively assuming that namespaces are
part of the model.

Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 21:23:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:49 UTC