W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Can RDF say anything about anything?

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 10:14:44 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030301100935.036d8690@localhost>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: RDF comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

At 16:27 19/02/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:

>Peter,
>
>With reference to your messages:
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0148.html
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0175.html
>[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0193.html
>
>I accept a need for some editorial revision.  This issue has been recorded 
>as WG issue pfps-15.

Sorry I missed this earlier, but pfps-15 is specifically about the primer:

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0292.html

The issue

    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15

concerns the sentence in the primer:

   [[
These examples also illustrate one of the basic architectural principles of
the Web, which is that anyone should be able say anything they want about
existing resources [BERNERS-LEE98].
]]

which Peter states is contradicted by the fact that not all graphs can be
serialized in RDF/XML.

This issue is independent of concepts.  If there is another issue with 
concepts I'd prefer to track it separately.

Brian


>   The remainder of this message is to clarify the extent of changes needed.
>
>You seem to claim there is a contradiction surrounding the question "Can 
>RDF say anything about anything?"
>
>I agree the phrase "Say anything about anything" is broken (I think 
>"Anyone can say something about anything" is closer to the intended goal 
>here.)  However, this phrase does not appear in the last-call version of 
>the concepts document [4].
>
>[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/
>
>I think that your comments suggest improvements in the following areas:
>- clarify whether or not certain URIs are reserved from use in the
>   abstract syntax, corresponding to the restrictions in the RDF/XML
>   syntax [5]
>- clarify the notion of "what is sanctioned by the RDF specification";
>   I think the text about what is sanctioned by RDF may
>   require some clarification:  some rdf/rdfs URIs are
>   reserved by RDF/XML for specific syntactic purposes, and
>   may not be used to denote resources (e.g. rdf:ID);
>   other rdf/rdfs URIs are reserved to identify specific
>   concepts, for which the corresponding resource is
>   constrained by the RDF specifications, and may not be
>   given an interpretation that is at variance with them.
>
>[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-grammar-summary
>
>However, I am at a loss to understand why being able to say something 
>about anything is in contradiction with the idea that the language has 
>certain syntactic restrictions.
>
>#g
>
>
>-------------------
>Graham Klyne
><GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2003 05:13:43 GMT

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