W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > May 2002

Fwd: Re: [URI vs. URIViews] draft-frags-borden-00.txt

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 11:31:55 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020529113129.03c5d3d0@joy.songbird.com>
To: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>

[Forwarded to www-archive with permission]

>Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:12:16 -0600
>To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
>From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>Subject: Re: [URI vs. URIViews] draft-frags-borden-00.txt
>
>>I've this nagging feeling I'm missing something.  I'm not sure how to 
>>reconcile:
>>
>>   "it uses them to identify *syntactic parts of RDF documents*"
>>
>>with
>>
>>   "but rather  to refer to what that part refers to, ie the concept 
>> rdfs:Class"
>>
>>(both can be found in context below)  There may have been a use/mention 
>>confusion in my example, but I was trying to present a use of a fragment 
>>identifier in which the corresponding URI did not refer to an RDF document.
>
>OK, sure. My read on the implicit assumptions we operate under is as follows.
>
>1. If we use a uriref of the form UURRII#ffragid  as an RDF uriref, and if 
>UURRII is in fact the URL of a document containing some RDF, and that RDF 
>uses the name ffragid as an identifier, then the uriref in our document 
>and the id in that document are the same RDF name.
>
>2. Any other use of a fragId in a uriref has no special meaning for RDF, 
>and in particular, there is no relationship assumed by RDF between the 
>meaning of a uriref and the meaning of the URI that it contains; they are 
>just two different urirefs, is all. As Jonathan B says, urirefs are opaque.
>
>So:
>
>>
>>An example from the DAML documents might be:
>>
>>    http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#decimal
>>
>>which I think clearly does not identify a syntactic part of an RDF document.
>
>Right, so case 1 does not apply.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>>Example:
>>>>
>>>>    urn:isbn:0-520-02356-0#page10 ex:contains "metatheory" .
>>>>
>>>>is, I think, perfectly legal RDF.
>>>
>>>OK, butI don't think it says what you want it to say.
>
>because case 2 applies. In other words, that uriref in the subject is not 
>guaranteed to denote a document. RDF has no semantic constraint to respect 
>the meanings of URN, only their syntax.
>
>Pat
>
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC                                    (850)434 8903   home
>40 South Alcaniz St.                    (850)202 4416   office
>Pensacola,  FL 32501                    (850)202 4440   fax
>phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 06:22:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:17 GMT