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

Re: Meaning of URIRefs (new test case, comments on Concepts draft)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 06:30:43 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0210250627340.21521-100000@tux.w3.org>


guys, can you take this to www-rdf-interest or maybe cc: www-archive? It's
an interesting discussion, but everything that goes to www-rdf-comments
that isn't direct feedback on the specs makes this list harder to mine for
spec feedback. This list isn't for extended discussion, though it is
natural for such discussions to spring from public feedback on the specs.
Maybe you could post a followup here once you've agreed (or agreed to
disagree?)?

cheers,

Dan

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Sandro Hawke wrote:

>
> > I believe that Sandro's position is indefensible.
>
> Hm.  It's always interesting to see what shape the assault will take.
>
> > To take a particular example, under his preferred proposal it would be
> > impossible to talk about  George-Bush-the-lesser without also committing
> > to the fact that North Korea is a member of the axis of evil, because
> > this would be one of the facts on the web page for George-Bush-the-lesser.
>
> No, it would be quite possible.   If you want to talk about GWB you
> have some choices of which URIRef to use.   You're imagining some page
> which talks about GWB and also says North Korea is in the "axis of
> evil".  I can't find such a page in Google, because all the news pages
> quote Bush talking about such an axis rather than asserting themselves
> that it exists.   Nonetheless, there might be such a page, and then
> using a URI like
>    http://whitehouse.example.com/#Bush
> would in fact be committing you to such a dubious fact.
>
> But you're free to use other pages.   You could use
>    http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/#Bush and be committing to some
> lesser statements, like that in his 2002 State of the Union Address,
> Bush outlines three priorities.
>
> I expect you, being more-than-competent in the field would chose
> instead some more-formal description involving an ontology of the US
> Govt or of Heads-of-State, and identifying Bush perhaps as the 43rd
> head of the state of the US.   That kind of definition would have very
> few unwanted commitments.
>
>    -- sandro
>
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 06:30:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT