W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2004

Re: version for review

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 09:17:48 +0100
Message-ID: <406A7EAC.2060101@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

You may be right, "you are IMO just us much out on the fringes of, or 
beyond, RDF-land", let's hear Pat ... he's back from his travels.


Jeremy


Patrick Stickler wrote:

> 
> On Mar 30, 2004, at 15:12, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
>> Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>
>>>>> Section 8.1: "We require [the value of the swp:signatureMethod 
>>>>> property]
>>>>> to be a literal URI, which can be dereferenced on the Web..."
>>>>> Question, what is the difference between a URI and a literal URI? Do
>>>>> you mean rdfs:range xsd:AnyURI?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> xsd:anyURI I think - a literal URI denotes itself in the RDF Model 
>>>> Theory and hence can then be used for dereference operation, whereas 
>>>> a URIref node denotes a resource, presumbably the same resource as 
>>>> that for which you get a representation when you dereference it, but 
>>>> that takes us well into the social meaning issue, that we are trying 
>>>> to skirt around.
>>>
>>> But wouldn't you be *wanting* to denote the resource, the method itself?
>>> Otherwise, anything said about that method would not be stated in terms
>>> of that URI.
>>> I don't think the range/value should be a literal. I think it should
>>> be the method itself, denoted by a particular URI, which might be
>>> dereferencable (or might not).
>>
>>
>> In theory I agree, in practice I don't - let's hear what Pat has to 
>> say on this one. In theory, whenever you use a web dereferencable URI 
>> the resource denoted has a representation that is got by the URI-GET, 
>> however that is not a part of RDF Semantics and I don't think it is 
>> for this paper to add it.
> 
> 
> I'm not suggesting that we add anything to the RDF semantics.
> 
> This is why I suggested that the value be a resource -- and whether
> the URI denoting the resource is web resolvable or not is not significant
> to the function of that resource -- which is simply to serve as a commonly
> agreed method (however/wherever defined, regardless of the web).
> 
> By specifying that the value is an xsd:anyURI literal, you are IMO
> just us much out on the fringes of, or beyond, RDF-land than talking
> about whether the URI used resolves to a representation that defines
> the method in question.
> 
> A signature method is a thing/resource, and we'd probably want to use RDF
> to talk about that method in pretty significant detail. Using a literal
> precludes that (in any practical sense).
> 
> I don't see it as any different than a vocabulary term. If it's best to
> use xsd:anyURI values to denote methods, than it's just as valid to use
> xsd:anyURI values to denote vocabulary terms (if literals could be
> subjects or predicates, that is ;-)
> 
> Patrick
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Patrick Stickler
> Nokia, Finland
> patrick.stickler@nokia.com
> 
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 03:30:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:41 GMT