W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > July 2003

Re: URIrefs and granularity - cont.

From: Benja Fallenstein <b.fallenstein@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 01:09:21 +0200
Message-ID: <3F09FDA1.6000105@gmx.de>
To: Jeroen Bekaert <jbekaert@lanl.gov>
CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org


Hi Jeroen,

Jeroen Bekaert wrote:
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
> xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about=http://foo/foo.xml#xpointer(Item[position() = 4
> or  position() = 5])"/>
>     <dc:author>John Doe</dc:author>
>   </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
...
> So, in my opinion, according to the technical spec. of RDF, this statement
> is perfectly valid. However, I do have some concerns about the sematic
> meaning of it. The above-mentioned example is stating the following:
> (UNION of (http://foo/foo.xml#Item[4], http://foo/foo.xml#Item[5])) has a
> property dc:creator with value "John Doe".

For better or for worse, RDF treats URI+fragid as an opaque string. That 
is, from the standpoint of RDF, your XPointer URI is just a URI that 
could mean anything-- the W3C, the theory of relativity, the activity of 
jogging in the woods, or even the union of two XML elements.

So, from the RDF and XPointer specs alone, the above does *not* follow. 
I think we'd all agree that your interpretation is pretty reasonable, 
but it doesn't follow from the specs AFAICS.

Now, if you own that URI, you could of course declare that this shall be 
its interpretation. If you do, it depends on your definition whether it 
follows that--

> http://foo/foo.xml#Item[4] has property dc:creator with value "John Doe"
> http://foo/foo.xml#Item[5] has property dc:creator with value "John Doe"

That's not a terribly great situation, but I believe that's how it is 
right now...

Cheers,
- Benja
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 19:10:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:00 GMT