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

Re: new semantics initiative

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:07:19 +0300
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B92E2D67.16A87%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2002-06-12 19:46, "ext patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

> 
>> 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.

No. The connection is between an RDF graph and vocabulary terms
which are denoted by URIs. The fact that a set of terms are grouped
together in a functional collection, and for editorial convenience
that collection is given the same XML namespace prefix in the RDF/XML
serialization is *irrelevant*.

We could just as easily give every single RDF and RDFS term a different
XML namespace prefix, and the connections between those terms and
their semantics in the graph would be the same (it would just make
RDF/XML a bit harder to write).

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

But what is the formal connection between a term and that collection
of terms? Where in the graph do we see that relation? Where is
that collection explicitly denoted in the graph as produced by
*every* conformant RDF parser?

You seem to be missing some pieces to your puzzle, Pat.

Yes, the W3C defines a functional vocabulary called RDF, and
another called RDFS, and yes, the terms of those vocabularies
are grounded in the same XML namespace for each vocabulary,
and yes, the namespace URI is taken to denote those functional
vocabularies, *BUT* in the graph itself, there is *no* explicit
representation of the relationship between term and vocabulary
which is accessible to any RDF application.

Show me where I'm wrong.

(and no fair peeking into URIs either, those are opaque, no?)

>> 
>>>  (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.

That's *my* 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?

You've misunderstood me. I have no problems with a set of URIs having
a single owner. See comments above.

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 04:03:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:15 EDT