Re: KR, meet WWW. was: Clarifying what a URL identifies (Four Uses of a URL)

On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 17:23, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> On Friday, Jan 24, 2003, at 09:45 US/Eastern, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> > offlist, copy to www-archive...
> >
> > On Fri, 2003-01-24 at 08:23, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> > [...]
> >> If you like, it is as though there is an axiom
> >>
> >> { ?x log:uri ?u.  ?u  string:match "^http://[^#]$" } => { ?x rdf:type
> >> doc:Work }.
> >>
> >> (where string:match is a regexp matcher)
> >> This axioms comes from the URI spec and the specs it references.
> >
> > ???
> >
> > Which section of the URI spec does that come from?
> >
> 
> The URI spec calls out the MIEM type registry,
> The MIME type registry calls out the HTTP spec.

Huh? MIME type registry calls out the HTTP spec?
Perhaps you meant that the URI spec calls out
the URI scheme registry, which calls out the
HTTP spec.

But actually, the URI spec, RFC 2396, says
nothing about IANA nor a registry.

Perhaps you meant to include RFC2717 in "the URI spec".
  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2717.txt

But you're asking a lot of your readers when you
leave all this implicit.

Anyway, all this is minor compared to...

> The HTTP spec says it identifies a network information object.

... which begs the question again: which part of the HTTP
spec says that? Ah; that has a reasonably straightforward
answer:

  The "http" scheme is used to locate network
  resources via the HTTP protocol.
  -- http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.2.2

But it's not at all clear that 'network resource'
is a synonym for doc:Work.

OK, I think I see your argument now, but you're asking
a lot of your readers when you leave all this
implicit.


> > This sort of thing totally undermines your argument,
> > I think.
> >
> 
> It is difficult to make the point about the URI spec constraining
> models in OWL without being concrete, and its difficult to
>   be concrete when there is no formalization in the web specs.
> 
> What would you have suggested as an alternative?

I suggest you slow down and explain the chain of reasoning.

I have a lot of shared context with you, and I read your
message as saying

	<rfc2396> log:includes {
		{ ?x log:uri ?u. 
		?u  string:match "^http://[^#]$" } =>
		{ ?x rdf:type doc:Work } }.

which is plainly false.

The actual argument is much more subtle.

Hmm... might be fun to formalize the actual argument
and have Euler spit out the proof.

> Tim
> 
> >> Any semantic web engine can conclude it.  It is not authorized
> >> by the OWL spec, it is authorized by the URI spec.
> >
> > -- 
> > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> >
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 10:23:23 UTC