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

Re: Subclass of Thing/Resource

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:01:47 +0100
Message-ID: <38BF716B.B8F587BC@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
CC: ML RDF-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>
Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> >Sure a web page or an e-mail address IS NOT the corresponding person.
> >Neither is its employee ID...
> No. Either can be used to identify a person.
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Identity.html#Expressing
> >Though, could we prevent people using the dublin core properties this way :
> >
> ><rdf:Description about="http://www.somewhere.org/somedoc">
> >  <dc:Creator rdf:resource="mailto:John@somewhere.org"/>
> >  <dc:Creator rdf:resource="http://www.somewhere.org/~Paul/"/>
> >  <dc:Creator rdf:resource="employee://somewhere.org/12345"/>
> ></rdf:Description>
> >
> >I don't think so !
> Yes we can, I hope!  IMHO the above is a mess.  Is this what dc expect to
> happen?
> 0. We could define (if starting from zero) define dc:creator to have range
> dc:person where
> a person is the domain of properties dc:mailbox and sc:homepage and
> dc:commonname.
> That is the best solution.

do it, and people will write things like

<play:Person rdf:about="mailto:John@somewhere.org"/>
<play:Person rdf:about="http://www.somewhere.org/~Paul/">
<play:Person rdf:about="employee://somewhere.org/12345"/>

et voila ! The above dc:creator statements are valid.
This is what makes RDF flexible enough to scale the web.

> >URIs are ambiguous, yes, they have more than one interpretation level, yes.
> No, no. We should be clean or no reasoning from all this will be possible.

My belief is that SOME reasoning will be possible,
even if hard logic inference (with completeness and everything) will not.
We won't prove theorems, no - but is there any universal truth among the web, anyway ?

> >We can't prevent people from using URI with different interpretations,
> >so we'll have to use the context to tackle with it.
> we agree to differ then.

well, I meant, we sure can ENCOURAGE people to use strict structures,
and if they do, RDF agents will be able to perform very efficient and powerful reasoning.
but we can't rely on it - if navigator did rely only on HTML recommendation, 3/4 of the web would be unreadable!
one eroneous fact in a strict logical system can make the entire system contradictory ;
the web can not afford strict logic : its first axiom is "there is contradiction".

I'm thinking about writing a paper on the subject.
I'll post it on the list.


> >--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
> >    Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
> sed quid quid in RDF dictum sit, altum est.

sure :D
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 03:00:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:29 UTC