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

Re: the idea of a 'reserved' vocabulary

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 15:44:34 +0300
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B93262E2.16DC8%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2002-06-14 10:13, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:


> 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.  Effectively, this designates a single URI for dark triples, for
> which there will be a single associated schema document listing the URIrefs
> whose use suspends statement-assertion.

Ugh. Groan. 

URI inspection is URI inspection, and even beyond that, we're talking about
some arbitrary list of URIs that applications which may have no use for
must track and natively support just to be able to know what is or
is not an asserted triple in RDF. And with every addition to the list,
software has to be updated to keep on top of what is *true* in the RDF
graph!

Argh, are you folks for real? Yikes!

Hack, hack, hack, hack hack...

Blech!

(I'd add some smileys, but I really just can't believe I'm reading this...)

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 Sunday, 16 June 2002 08:40:20 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:19 EDT