W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: "Including" other RDF and RDFS files

From: m batsis <mbatsis@netsmart.gr>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 21:45:15 +0300
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, seth@robustai.net
Cc: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <200209302145.15237.mbatsis@netsmart.gr>


If the opinion of a plain developer counts to anything, I just need a 
mechanism to associate a namespace URI with a URL (the actual location of the 
document), whether that is a schema or a plain RDF file.

That document of course should be viewed as an RDF resource to attach 
prooperties to it (MIME type etc). The implicit effect on the graph could be 
that all inported resources from that document get an rdf:isContainedBy 
predicate.

Just my quarter of a euro.

Manos




On Monday 30 September 2002 21:07, pat hayes wrote:
> >pat hayes wrote:
> >>I have mixed feelings about this. It IS a neat idea and is widely
> >>used. On the other hand, if it gets used too cleverly then it will
> >>violate the RDF spec, since it can easily produce a completely
> >>different logic which doesnt mix with the standard RDF inference
> >>machinery. Well, OK, so let 10|3 flowers bloom, is one reaction.
> >>BUt speaking as one of the standards-writers its hard for me to
> >>live with that without complaining.
> >
> >My proposal [1] has nothing to do with logic.  A semref from one RDF
> >document to another is just like a like an <a href> from one web
> >page to another.  There are no logical entailments implied or wanted.
>
> Oh, OK. BUt then that sounds very like SeeAlso to me, and we have that.
>
> >  If people want logical entailments from their references to graphs
> >in other documents, they should use a logical language which implies
> >what they want.  Perhaps something like owl:imports [2].
> >
> >[1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0223.html
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#imports
> >
> >By your own admission, "There are clearly syntactic and operational
> >boundaries between graphs."  Well point is we need some standard
> >arcs in our graphs that relate to those syntactic boundaries so that
> >our programs will have the facts to operate on.  The WG ignoring
> >that  need, and semingly telling us that they are only concerned
> >with logic programming, is not helping  the interoperablity of
> >applications that are not necessarily based on logical inference.
> >Last time I looked that was about 95 % of the RDF which was being
> >used for practical matters.
> >
> >>Sure, it kind of makes sense, but not everyone else uses it that way.
> >
> >Well that feels very much like "Let them eat cake".    We *do* want
> >people to use the same property to refer from one RDF graph to
> >another,
>
> But wait. What do you mean here exactly? The references (if that is
> the right term) TO the RDF graph will be the same, since that graph
> is in a document (probably in XML) that will have a URL. The
> references INSIDE the graph will also be the same, since they are
> urirefs and if you use the same uriref in your graph, then its the
> same uriref (eg if you use rdf:type in your graph, its still
> rdf:type); that doesn't require any semrefing or importing, its just
> part of the global WWW URI stricture that is common to all web pages.
> And you don't want any new kinds of inference. So I must be missing
> something here: what is that you want, that isn't already there?
>
> Pat
>
> >  and for that to happen the WG should (imho) put semref in RDFS.
> >
> >Brian, if there is some more official way for me to ask for this
> >(whether it is taken up by the current WG or posponed to some future
> >rework) could you let me know ?
> >
> >Seth Russell
> >http://radio.weblogs.com/0113759/
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 14:24:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT