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

RE: "Resource" (RDF vocabulary definitions)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 17:08:07 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021127170324.03d2d160@127.0.0.1>
To: "Danny Ayers" <danny666@virgilio.it>
Cc: "www-rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

At 12:34 PM 11/27/02 +0100, Danny Ayers wrote:
>Out of curiosity, is there anything explicitly stated in the document suite
>that would stop:
>
><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/aaa">
>
>referring to the document at the URL
>
>http://example.org/bbb
>
>and
>
><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org/bbb">
>
>referring to the document at the URL
>
>http://example.org/aaa
>
>?

We're working on that.  There's nothing in the formal semantics AFAIK, but 
that would clearly be perverse in a practical situation.

There are some words about defining authority in RDF-concepts that we're 
trying to get into the right form so that they recognize the real-life 
context that associates an HTTP URI with what you get on dereferencing.

Part of the challenge here, I think, is to get the formalisms right so that 
they don't come over as artefacts in the real world.  So even if the 
perversity you describe is possible, and behaves in a logically consistent 
fashion, that doesn't mean anyone would want to use it that way.  What is 
important, I think, is that the things we do want to do also behave in a 
logically consistent fashion.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 15:09:50 GMT

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