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

RE: rdfs:isDefinedBy (Was Re: Representing DCMI semantics as RDF schemas versus Web pages)

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:08:44 +0100
To: "'RDF Interest'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c20d52$e827b170$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 Patrick
> Stickler  
> 
> I fully agree. http: URLs should *always* resolve to a web
> resource.  
> 
> If you have a resource that is not web-accessible, you should 
> *not* denote it with an http: URL.

Nonono. In RDF, that's looking into the URI for meaning. It is
(another) fundamental principle of the RDF MT that a given URI is a
constant and it has no meaning in of itself. Looking into the URI
for meaning or processing clues; that's a hack, as you like to put
it. 

 
> Of course, to some folks, that's either blithering nonsense 
> or heresy (or both)  But hey, it's a free world, and they're 
> free to be wrong ;-)

They're not wrong. You won't find URI schemes in the RDF graph any
more than you'll find XML namespaces.

Bill de hÓra



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

iQA/AwUBPP9QyeaWiFwg2CH4EQLcGgCfQl8CgNLZF5QVHajQfNllz6pl9jwAoMcT
Rp5kd662xWfSLsRxIuwMf0hD
=NsbZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 08:11:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT