W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Explicit Disambiguation Via RDF bNodes, more Process

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 18:52:13 +0100
To: "'Sandro Hawke'" <sandro@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001f01c1ed4b$19416210$887ba8c0@mitchum>
 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandro
> Hawke 
>
> If we don't stick to one consistent approach, we're going to 
> have a messier semantic web.  I don't think anything will 
> break, but a large merged RDF graph, coming from many 
> sources, will have properties of <http://www.microsoft.com> 
> telling you when it was down, when it was last defaced, what 
> it's stock price is, when it was last modified, who it's CEO 
> is, that it's written in English, that it owns several 
> patents, that it's 26684 bytes long, etc.  It wont form a 
> very coherent picture.

Yep, that's the issue. Nothing will break, but some of the
inferences will be garbage, as it won't be clear what entity they
apply to or what entities they derived from. Open systems come at a
cost.

 
> I'm not sure the right forum for coming to rough consensus.  
> RDF Core sadly declared the issue out of scope [1], and while 
> the TAG might make a recommendation, it might not be broad 
> enough to reach real consensus.  It's also not clear this 
> matter much outside of RDF.

It matters wherever you're naming things and want to say something
about this things. RDFCore did the right thing to mark this issue
out of scope. Frankly, they have enough to do anyway, and anything
they might mandate on this matter isn't practically enforceable. 


> (Apparently the RDF Core WG thinks it's okay to use an HTTP 
> URI to denote a person and fetch some RDF from that URI.  If 
> the RDF were written by the person, it seems like it would be 
> logically valid for them to write
>     <> dc:creator <>.   <> dc:subject <>.
> The document, its creator, and its subject are all the same
> thing. It's not a very coherent picture.   Maybe that's okay.)

RDFCore's job is to mainly to make RDF graphs sensible and clean up
the syntax. What people name with URIs is not a technical issue to
my mind.

Bill de hÓra

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQA/AwUBPMmTluaWiFwg2CH4EQIyDgCg2S1Vyn6l3moCMi+3iomnQnkZmTcAn2yB
Y0D7cZ0p2MX5XHDxA/gI0BaD
=9dyv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 13:59:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:53 GMT