W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Re: call for agenda items for this weeks telecon (terminology)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 06:24:12 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b03ba87f0cc4ffa@[192.168.0.31]>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>However this is ultimately resolved, I want to note that the Primer 
>initially says that RDF uses URI references, and henceforth 
>abbreviates the term (where possible) as "URIrefs".
>I would object on behalf of ordinary readers of English to replacing 
>each occurrence in the Primer with "RDF URI Reference" (if that's 
>the final terminology);  Dan's "bletch" would be a mild reaction if 
>I had to do that (not by me, by the readers;  I can operate a 
>"global replace").

Agreed, that would be unreadable.

>
>I'd also note that the Concepts text that's being cited here
>
>"A URI reference within an RDF graph (an RDF URI reference)..."
>
>seems to effectively equate "RDF URI Reference" with "a URI 
>reference within an RDF graph".  So is it a URI Reference or not?

Right, there seems to be a circularity there.

>  Note that we're talking about *syntax* here (this is the abstract 
>syntax section), rather than differences about what RDF chooses to 
>use these things for (which seems to me a separate issue).  So are 
>RDF URI references *syntactically* URI references or not? (I 
>understand that not all URI references, e.g. relative URIs, are 
>legit as RDF URI references

Hmm. I presume there was a good reason for that restriction. Seems on 
balance that there is no obvious reason why RDF should exclude any 
class of identifier. Logically, the 'RDF URIrefs' could be any set of 
strings which are distinguishable from literals and bnodes. I cannot 
see any good pragmatic or semantic reason to exclude any URIrefs from 
RDF.

Has this got something to do with bloody XML ?

>;  but I think we cover that)
>
>[BTW:  If we were going to make a major change here,


I didn't mean to suggest any major change, only that we get the 
various documents using a common terminology and notation. And I knew 
that I had it wrong in Semantics.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 18:26:47 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:10 EDT