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

Re: [ratholes, reification, risk] poison-URIref testcases

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:44:32 -0500 (EST)
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0203250942130.422-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Jan Grant wrote:

> Ack, it only takes one sentence to make me break my promise :-)
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
> >  The MT does acknowledge that
> > urirefs have global meaning imposed by our shared Web understanding
> > of these node labels.
>
> Hrm, the only words I can find in the MT that talk about "global
> meaning" are there so that you can merge graphs by merging nodes with
> labelled with the same URI, I think.

http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
[[
The use of 'public' URIs in an RDF graph is often
 taken to imply that an assertion of the graph implicitly assents to the truth
  of other RDF graphs that define the meaning of that URI. To apply the  model
  theory to this kind of situation, one should think of the restriction on  the
  world represented by an assertion of the merge of the
  asserted graph together with whatever RDF graphs are assumed to define the public
  vocabulary, in order to fully convey the intended meaning of the
'public' assertion.
]]

I've never taken this view, btw, since we've never really established that
there are RDF graphs out there that define (rather than describe) the
meaning of URIs.

Dan
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 09:44:43 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:22 EDT