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

Re: Discussion-Paper: A Logical Interpretation of RDF

From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:05:58 +0200
Message-ID: <39B4B776.B10756AE@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@dial.pipex.com>
CC: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote:
> I think you're right that the formal model described in RDFM&S does not
> assume a resource has a URI.  BUT:
> 
> (a) the supporting text seems to assume this, in that the only way offered
> by the supporting text to indicate a resource is via its URI.
> 
> (b) There has been some discussion about the relationship between URIs and
> resources.  (I think we may have discussed this briefly in Amsterdam.)  Tim
> BL and Dan Connolly assert that URIs and resources are 1:1, in which case
> the existence of a resource requires that there be exactly one
> corresponding URI.  Another point of view is that there may be multiple
> URIs for a given resource, in which case one can always invent one that is
> only visible within the local context of the RDF model concerned and use
> that, if no globally visible name is provided.
> 
>      Either of these approaches can work for me, but I'd like to see the
> wider community express a consensus about the relationship between URIs and
> resources.  Part of the problem is, I think, that most of the time this
> URI/resource relationship simply doesn't matter so there's no need to argue
> it out.  But I have a feeling that it's in situations like this --
> formalizing RDF behaviours -- where such issues become significant.
> 
>      And finally:  maybe there's a way for both of these views to coexist?

I'm quite surprised; from RFC 2396

         The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity or set of
         entities

as I understand it, more than one URI can have the same mapping to an entoty or a set of entities...

That is the way I unsertood anonymous resources from M&S :
resource for which we do not know a URI, so a solution is to let the parser generate one that will be locally used.
But I agree with other posts of this thread, that the "anonymity" of such resources should be kept for further serialization, and that it is a shame that the syntax does not allow to serialize any model involving anonymous resources.

  pA

--- Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    Whatever is said in Latin sounds important.
Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2000 05:07:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT