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

Re: Suggestion for next round of model theory document

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:13:46 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101013b7e22a62b9d7@[]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 07:55 PM 10/3/01 -0500, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>>On Tuesday, October 2, 2001, at 07:20  AM, Graham Klyne wrote:
>>>As a simple fix, I would suggest placing (something like) the 
>>>following text at the start of section 0.2 and/or 1.2:
>>>For the purposes of this document, the term <dfn>URI</dfn> is used 
>>>to mean an absolute URI with an optional fragment identifier.

I put that into the 3 October draft, but I didn't really understand 
why it was needed.

>>I really don't appreciate these ad-hoc redefinitions of URI. 
>>Please, if we're going to be using something else, let's call it 
>>something else.
>>Pat, can you do a search-and-replace for URI -> URI-view or 
>>something like that. (The above text could explain the meaning of 
>Aaron, in an ideal world, I would agree with you.  And I don't mean 
>to imply that the world can't be ideal in this case.  Most 
>important, I think, is to do something (anything?) to minimize 
>gratuitous additional confusion about URIs and their derivatives.

Now I am confused. I thought that the usage of 'URI' in the MT 
document was correct. Which of the following are URIs, can anyone 
give me some insight?







Pat (that's my signature, not a URI)

PS. Aaron, would it be OK if I just used the N-triples term 'uriref' 
for the node labels? I don't want to proliferate names unnecessarily. 
Or, I could consistently refer to 'URI labels' in the text, after 
explaining that this means, using Graham's wording.

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 11:13:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:52 UTC