W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: RDF comments from the ages

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 16:42:10 +0000
Message-ID: <3AB78862.C6815804@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi Aaron,

> First known instance, etc. means I found an older thread and felt that it
> should be linked in. So you better link all those in or I'll continue to
> badger you for a long time. ;-)

What the new group will need most, is as complete a list of issues as
possible, with references to some of the back ground discussion.  I am
using some judgement in the references I include.

> >> rdf:ID should create isDefinedBy triples
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Nov/0068.html
> Did you add this one? I feel it is important. Perhaps under:
> #rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about

Yes, I included that one.

> >> We need a standard way to talk about the source of triples:
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Nov/0089.html
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Nov/0097.html
> >> http://www-db.Stanford.EDU/~stefan/updates.html
> > I don't see a specification issue here.  Reification can be used to
> > model the source of statements.
> I think the issue is more that there is no way to talk about the source,
> while continuing to assert it. Somewhat related to:

You don't think:


covers this?

> > This is really a web architecture issue, however, I think we'd all be
> > better off we had a clearer formal model and terminology for URI's and
> > what they name, perhaps something similar to what the topic maps folks
> > have done.
> >
> > I'm going to seek some advice on this one.
> I agree, and I think Dan hinted towards something on the subject. If nothing
> else, we should at least keep track of all the issues and discussion so that
> they can be turned over to whoever takes care of this.
> I personally think this really needs to be resolved, at least sometime, by
> the SWeb activity.

Added as:


> >> Can't define acceptable properties for a class:
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/1999Dec/0094.html
> > I'm not sure I see an issue here, given that anyone can say anything
> > about anything.
> The issue is that in many OO languages (and databases) you constrain classes
> by stating the properties that they have, like:
>     :Car x:hasProperties :color, :price, ...
> RDFS allows you to constrain properties, as in:
>     dc:title :domain rdfs:Literal
> but you can't do the same (and more common) think for objects. Since for
> just about everything else RDFS' expressive power is about equal for classes
> and properties, I'd at least like an explanation why this is different.

That is not the issue raised in the message you cite. Do you consider
your issue is covered adequately in 2.1 of RDFS?

> >> Issue for Brian: Can you make the issue IDs links to their URIs? Like:
> >> Issue <a
> >> href="http:...#rdfms-uri-for-graph">rdfms-uri-for-graph</a>: blah blah
> >> blah...
> Any response on this?

I don't find myself strongly motivated to do this.

Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 11:41:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:13 UTC