W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15)

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 20:36:10 -0600
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B891D03A.20BBB%me@aaronsw.com>
On 2002-02-14 5:02 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

>>  o The WG resolves that the use of absolute URIs with fragment IDs is a
>>    to identify Web resources is relatively incompatible with current Web
>>    architecture.
> In what way??

Please see my explanation to DanC.
>>  o We recommend that RDF users refrain from using '#' in their Resource
>>    identifiers and namespaces.
> Aaargh!!  No, we don't. Such use is ESSENTIAL. How else can one
> ontology use the names used in another ontology??

Seems I must have been unclear, since you misunderstood me too. I meant
people choosing identifiers for new terms and vocabularies.
> My goal is prevent URIs becoming completely unusable in web ontologies.

Then this is fine, since I'm trying to make sure everyone uses URIs. Only
folks who are not using URIs are affected here.
> Wait a minute. Whats the 'bug' here? If RDF (and DAML and OWL and...)

I don't think RDF and DAML were _required_ to use fragments in their
identifiers, and OWL has been required to do just the opposite in their

DanC recently vehemently defended this requirement:

So OWL _must_ use URIs, and thus are safe from this change.

> are required to use urirefs  for all identifiers, and if urirefs have
> no way to be [a name as used inside another ontology which is in turn
> identified by a URI], then the entire semantic web is dead in the
> water. This absolutely MUST be possible somehow.

I showed how you can identify the thing that most people mean with a URIref
in my proposal. Are you talking about something else?

> That 
> four-triple monstrosity is unusable, in particular.

Well, we could define the current usage as syntactic shorthand for it.

I have other proposals in my response to Brian's message. I think this may
be the least of our problems...
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 21:36:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC