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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:04:30 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101452b893342edd29@[]>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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.

I read it, but I don't follow it. I get the impression that vested 
interests are grumbling at having to rewrite code, but (a) I don't 
know why they have to and(b) I don't really care. I still don't know 
what the *technical* problem is here. Is there a technical problem, 
in fact, or is this purely a political issue about who controls a 

>>>   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.

I really don't follow the distinctions being made, or understand what 
the problems are. Suppose I use some wierd way, known to all RDF 
software, for referring to things inside RDF ontologies on the web. 
If I give one of these wierd ways to a browser, maybe, it doenst know 
what to do with it. So? Who gives a damn? It couldnt do anything with 
it in any case, its not an RDF engine; it handles HTML. My RDF 
inference engine can't understand HTML either. So what is the problem?

>>  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:

Maybe you didn't see my reply to that. :-)

>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?

OK, but as far as I can see, your proposals are no better than the 
use of #, they are just longer, require more typing, and make an 
already virtually unusable notation even more unusable. So why bother?

>>  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...

I still don't see what the actual problem is.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 17:04:27 UTC

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