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: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:38:00 -0400
Message-Id: <200210251938.g9PJc0W25481@wadimousa.hawke.org>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org


> Wow!  That's a heavy message!

Yeah, my back's been hurting since starting it.  :-)

> In short, I think you touch on a number of issues that are beyond the scope 
> of the current RDF specifications.

I understand your concern, but I think, like bNodes at the start of
this process, this is something that many people have assumed was in
RDF.  When you publish the new specs, it may become clear that it is
not and we will have lost something vital.   Your current text about
social implications may just muddy the waters....   I really want you
guys to be done, and I thought a lot about whether it was even worth
mentioning this; in the end I convinced myself it was too essential to
the nature of Semantic Web to give up lightly.

>                             I did note a couple of areas that might 
> be improved in response to these comments.  I've summarized my take on 
> these issues in the document issue description at:
>     http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/DocIssues/RDF-Concepts/021-MeaningOfURIRefs
> .html

Excellent, thanks.

> Have I missed any vital ingredients here?

I think my just-posted follow-up to Pat [1] should probably be linked
too.  It's much clearer about several issues, like natural language
handling. 

Re: "and properties?" yes, absolutely.  All URIRefs labeling parts of
the graph.  This should include URIRefs labeling datatypes as well,
which I assume will make their way into some draft soon.  People use
URIRefs because they mean something; for now, the only way to
establish agreement on the meaning is to follow the URI.

Re: "I think [there] can be big difference in principle between
accepting the truth of a document and accepting a definition given in
a document."  Yes, in principle, but probably not in fact (alas).  See
[2], seconded by Peter.

Re: RDF entailment is a relationship between graphs, not documents.  I
don't think the difference matters.  I'm happy to rephrase everything
I said to be about graphs.  (or I would be if it weren't so long!)

Thanks again.  You've been doing an excellent job in a very
challenging environment.  I hope you guys can find the time and energy
to understand and incorporate the changes I'm suggesting, at least so
far as deciding whether the test case makes sense.  Perhaps if you
don't, some meta-RDF notion of "semantic web entailment" can be
promulgated from somewhere, but I think it will be a lot harder in the
long run to make the Semantic Web work.

      -- sandro

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Oct/0111.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Oct/0107.html
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 15:38:41 GMT

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