I confused 89 and 130. Darn /dev/random. This is a complaint about 130. > > On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 12:35, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > > Let's call this odd > > > hybrid approach #89. > > > > What's odd about it? It's clearly the way the Web > > works, and consistent with all the specs (RDF, HTTP, > > HTML, not sure about XLink/XPointer) as written, no? > > It's how the works in an informal, human way, but it doesn't seem > amenable to machine processing. > > To rephrase, approach #89 says that the denotation of an http URI or > URI-Reference is EITHER a living-document-like-thing (a maintainable > collection of information) or a domain-of-discourse thing which is the > subject (apparent and/or intended -- that's another issue) of the > document-like-thing. > > Consider the RDF graph > _:sandro n1:likes <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/> > and assume you know that _:sandro is me. You don't know if it's > saying I have the "n1:likes" relationship with the web page or with > the consortium. > > But then the schema for n1:likes tells you its range is web pages, so > now you know. > > But then you come across > _:eric n2:likes <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/> > and the range of n2:likes is organizations. Organizatons and web > pages are disjoint in my ontology, so we have a contradiction. > > To generalize, any RDF graph which tries to use the URI as both a > subject identifier and a page identifier (with non-trivial ontologies > for each) will be inconsistent. This is likely to occur in lots of > real systems, especially as graphs are merged unpredictably. > > Do you see a way out of this? > > -- sandroReceived on Thursday, 2 January 2003 06:05:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:08:50 GMT