W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2000

RE: RDF and XLink: naming RDF statements

From: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:09:21 +0100
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000605095754.00b56430@pop.dial.pipex.com>
To: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@metacode.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 12:17 PM 6/2/00 -0700, Ron Daniel wrote:
>         So, it is certainly possible to deal with the behavior
>         attributes. But it will be a little awkward because RDF
>         does not specify an interoperable way of coming up with
>         the URI for statements when reifying them. Before stepping
>         into the tarpit of making up such an interoperable URI,
>         I'd like to know there is some value associated with the
>         effort.

I'm not sure about the Xlinking aspects, but the idea of naming and RDF 
statement (graph arc) does seem to have value as a means of identifying the 
statement with a "context" (specifically, for me: who said or assured 
it?  When?).

To recap some other threads:  full reification seems over-the-top -- simply 
having a URI with which to associate contextual information seems to be enough.

There has been some debate about using local optimizations of full 
reification.  To me, it is not clear how such optimizations would be 
represented in a serialized form of the graph model - by which I mean *any* 
serialization, not just the currently-defined serialization.

Does the URI-generation need to be standard in the sense that different 
systems must use the same mechanism for interoperability to be 
achieved?  I'm not sure.

>         This gets into another advanced topic, Contexts, that is
>         periodically discussed but for which no standard exists.

Well, yes:  I see these issues as very related.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
(GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Monday, 5 June 2000 09:03:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:43 GMT