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

Re: a URI is a name (tel uri scheme and VCARD RDF)

From: Nikita Ogievetsky <nogievet@cogx.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 19:26:22 -0800
Message-ID: <130f01c294fb$988ec230$1101a8c0@VAIOCOGI>
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Alexander Jerusalem" <ajeru@vknn.org>

Alexander Jerusalem wrote:

> Hmm, I think the problem with your solution is that the two statements do
> not have the same subject. Shouldn't it rather be something like:
>
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="12345678901234567890">
>    <rtm:shortname>W3C</rtm:shortname>
>    <rtm:weburi>http://www.w3c.org"</rtm:weburi>
> </rdf:Description>
>
> I know that the rdf:about as above is not valid RDF, I just want to
> illustrate that the contents of the id should be completely meaningless.
> For RDF compliance it should probably be something along the lines of
> rdf:about="urn:12345678901234567890".

Sure. May I just correct you that
"contents of the id MAY be completely meaningless".
I made it sound English to help convey my point.

BTW, in topic maps world, applications are even not required to preserve
topic id values.

--Nikita.

>
> At 05:39 25.11.2002 -0800, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote:
> >Alexander,
> >
> >This is actually one of the axioms of Topic Maps [1].
> >In my RDF Topic Maps attempts [2] I am defining two RTM properties:
> >
> ><daml:UnumbiguousProperty rdf:ID="indicatedBy">
> >  <rdfs:subPropertyOf
> >rdf:resource="http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#TransitiveProperty"/>
> >  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#topic"/>
> >  <rdfs:range
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"/>
> >  <rdfs:comment>Subject Indicating Resource</rdfs:comment>
> ></daml:UnumbiguousProperty>
> >
> ><daml:UnumbiguousProperty rdf:ID="constitutedBy">
> >  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#topic"/>
> >  <rdfs:range
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"/>
> >  <rdfs:comment>Subject Constituting Resource</rdfs:comment>
> ></daml:UnumbiguousProperty>
> >
> >So that I can say in one document:
> >
> ><rdf:Description rdf:ID="w3c">
> >   <rtm:indicatedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3c.org"/>
> ></rdf:Description>
> ><rdf:Description rdf:ID="w3cwebsite">
> >   <rtm:constitutedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3c.org"/>
> ></rdf:Description>
> >
> >[1] http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/
> >[2] http://www.cogx.com/swglasses.html
> >
> >--Nikita.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Alexander Jerusalem" <ajeru@vknn.org>
> >To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>; "Richard H. McCullough"
> ><rhm@cdepot.net>
> >Cc: "Doug Ransom" <doug.ransom@alumni.uvic.ca>; <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> >Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 3:55 PM
> >Subject: Re: a URI is a name (tel uri scheme and VCARD RDF)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if the following is of any relevance for this thread but
your
> > > discussion reminds me of a question I have always had regarding RDF:
> > >
> > > URIs, it seems to me, are used in two completely different ways: On
the
> >one
> > > hand they are just unique names for something. On the other hand they
are
> > > used to point to something and provide a kind of processing
instruction
> > > that allows us to physically retrieve the thing it points to. Now when
we
> > > talk about someone's homepage for example, I don't think it is
appropriate
> > > to use the URL that allows us to physically retrieve the homepage as
the
> > > unique name of the homepage. The two roles should be strictly
separated.
> > > The reason is that I could have made a lot of statements about the
> >homepage
> > > that use this URI as a unique name, that is as their subject. The
physical
> > > address, however, can change.
> > >
> > > So even for internet resources, I think we should have one URI to name
it
> > > and another one to point at it, even if the two happen to have the
same
> > > sequence of characters at any one point in time.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At 14:48 24.11.2002 -0800, Paul Prescod wrote:
> > >
> > > >Richard H. McCullough wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>I followed the link at the bottom of this email, and read Sean B.
> > > >>Palmer's interesting essay on URIs.
> > > >
> > > >I'm not clear on your opinion of Doug's proposal. ;) But you did
change
> > > >the subject line so I guess we'll treat this as a new thread.
> > > >
> > > >>For example, if we want to talk about Linus Torvalds in the context
of
> > > >>URIs & RDFS, we might have three different somethings that we need
three
> > > >>different names for:
> > > >>
> > > >>     Linus Torvalds the person
> > > >>     a document that contains RDFS statements that describe facts
about
> > > >> Linus Torvalds
> > > >>     a graph that contains nodes and links that describe facts about
> > > >> Linus Torvalds
> > > >>
> > > >>My impression, based on a few RDF-interest emails, is that much
> >confusion
> > > >>has been generated by trying to use one URI when three URIs are
> >required.
> > > >
> > > >I think that you misunderstand the debate. It is easy to make up
three
> > > >URIs for Linus Torvalds or ten (let's not forget his home page and
email
> > > >address and ...). The question is whether the syntactic form of the
URI
> > > >restricts whether it refers to him, or his home page or the graph or
...
> > > >
> > > >Seth says:
> > > >
> > > > >  Linus Torvalda the person
> > > > >    http://foo/#LinusTorvalds
> > > > >  a documdent that contains RDFS statements that describe facts
about
> > > > > Linus Torvalds
> > > > >    http://foo/
> > > > >  a graph that contains nodes and links that describe facts about
> > > > Linus > Torvalds
> > > > >    http://foo/#ThisGraph
> > > >
> > > >But an equally consistent position is:
> > > >
> > > >Linus Torvalds the person
> > > >
> > > >     http://foo/LinusTorvalds
> > > >
> > > >   a docudent that contains RDFS statements that describe facts about
> > > > Linus Torvalds
> > > >
> > > >     http://foo/LinusTorvaldsInRDF
> > > >
> > > >   a graph that contains nodes and links that describe facts about
Linus
> > > > Torvalds
> > > >
> > > >     http://foo/LinusTorvaldsGraph
> > > >
> > > >Insofar as RDF care NEITHER about the syntax of the URI _nor_ the
data
> > > >referred to by the URI, why should WE care? Why impose a syntactic
> > > >convention at all? RDF offers me ways of saying that InRDF is the RDF
> > > >representation and Graph is the graph representation of the
LinusTorvalds
> > > >concept. If Seth wants to use his convention then he can, but he
should
> > > >also use RDF statements to make explicit the relationship.
> > > >
> > > >  Paul Prescod
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 22:26:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT