Re: the idea of a 'reserved' vocabulary

First, what Graham said:

On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 02:13, Graham Klyne wrote:
[...]
> >Since reserving a vocabulary effects the meaning of RDF, the authority to 
> >declare a uriref or urirefs 'reserved' in this sense rests with the 
> >W3C.  A uriref or set of urirefs is reserved only if it is declared to be 
> >so by a W3C Recommendation. In particular, reserving a vocabulary cannot 
> >be done by simply asserting on a webpage that it is to be considered 
> >reserved. There is no way to state in RDF, or any language encoded in RDF, 
> >that a uriref is reserved, or for any RDF document to entail this as a 
> >consequence.
> 
> My more substantive comment:  some folks are going to have to implement 
> this stuff, and the above statement doesn't really help them.  Therefore, I 
> think the spec should state up-front the form of URIs that won't be 
> asserted.  To alleviate the issues of URI-inspection, I think we could 
> limit the form to something like:
> 
>      http://www.w3.org/2002/06-rdf-unasserted#<foo>
> 
> where values of <foo> must be documented in W3C recommendation track 
> documents.

Second, would somebody please show how this helps with layering?

i.e. show how it relates to the example in...

# Layering OWL on RDF: the case for unasserted triples
Jonathan Borden (Thu, May 30 2002)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0145.html

and/or the 5 "Indicative Statements and Inferences" in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002May/att-0022/01-_all.htm

?

I remain unconvinced of the utility, let alone necessity,
of unasserted triples in any form.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/