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

RDF Issue rdf-equivalent-uris

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:57:02 +0000
Message-ID: <3BEFF14E.2080608@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: eric@openly.com
CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org



you raised an issue with the RDF model and syntax spec which was recorded in



   Given web principles, there can in general be no centralised authority
   which defines the 'correct' URI for any given entity. Should the core RDF
   specs define a property that specifies two resources to be equivalent?

On 9th November 2001, as recorded in


the RDFCore WG resolved

   Whilst the WG recognises the importance of a mechanism for
   defining equivalence of URI's, the WG has decided it does not
   fit within the scope of its current charter.  The WG notes that
   DAML+OIL has an equivalence mechanism which raises the question
   of which layer of the stack best suits such functionality.  The
   WG also notes that by allowing cycles in rdfs:subPropertyOf and
   rdfs:subClassOf RDF Schema provides a related mechanism for
   properties and classes. Consideration of this issue will be

This issue will hopefully be given further consideration by a future WG with a 
more liberal charter.

If you have any comments on this decision, please reply to this message, copying 

Brian McBride
RDFCore co-chair
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 10:56:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:17 UTC