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

Re: new semantics initiative

From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:46:53 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111a05b92d2a6bf79e@[65.217.30.94]>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>On 2002-06-12 7:23, "ext patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:
>
>>  ...instead, we (ie the RDF coreWG) assume that the W3C will
>>  eventually have the good sense to declare that a certain namespace is
>>  *globally* understood to be 'rdf-invisible', in that any triples
>>  which use urirefs from that namespace are not asserted in any RDF
>>  graph.
>
>Sorry to rain on the parade, but this is nonsense. Namespaces
>are not significant nor represented in the RDF graph, and there
>is no formal relationship between a URI and whatever namespace
>prefix was used to hack it into the RDF/XML serialization.
>
>Basing the designation of dark triples on namespace distinction
>is impossible, since that distinction is an illusion.

Then the entire WWW is an illusion. I will leave others to draw a 
conclusion about that.

>
>C.f. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Jun/0172.html
>
>If you wish to simply say that the use of namespaces to trigger
>an RDF parser to flag such statements as dark, well, fine, but
>let's please be clear that it is a syntactic mechanism and not
>a semantic one, and to that end, I can think of a number of
>other possible (and IMO better) syntactic mechanisms for
>indicating dark triples that are not based on namespace prefixes.
>
>But saying "any triples which use urirefs from that namespace"
>is nonsense since urirefs have no namespace. They are URIs,
>not qnames, and they are fully opaque.
>
>Presuming that triples have some indication of being dark
>which is not based on namespaces, such as a simple bit,
>then we're OK, and can proceed with dark triples and
>the introduction of the proposed layering tweaks to the MT.
>
>But there are *no* namespaces in the RDF graph. None whatsoever.

Well, sorry, but *that* is nonsense. If there are no namespaces in 
the RDF graph then there is no connection between any RDF graph and 
the RDF + RDFS vocabulary, so all of RDF(S) is meaningless.

Maybe we are using 'namespace' in different senses?? I just mean a 
set of URIs that belong to someone (in this case, the W3C).

>
>>  (6) Does this require any changes to syntax/ test cases/ Ntriples/
>>  datatyping/ whatever?
>>  A: No.
>
>I don't see how it would not. We would need a mechanism in RDF/XML
>for setting the dark bit on statements and also an explicit
>representation of that bit in NTriples (such as ';' rather than '.').

No, that is not the proposal.

>
>But that probably is not a great amount of work, and likely
>could be done in a backward compatable manner.
>
>[In case it's not clear, I'm pretty much in favor of providing for
>  these layering tweaks to the MT and elsewhere, so long as they
>  are not based on reference to namespaces]

I do not follow your reasons for objecting to the idea of a set of 
URIs having an owner. Isnt that a given, in all these discussions?

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 12:46:57 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:14 EDT