W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2004

Re: web proper names

From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:22:21 -0400
Message-ID: <414F2DED.3020605@comcast.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Jon Hanna wrote:
  I think the way to
> extend RDF to deal with this is to define a predicate that defines the
> relationship between the resource identified by the URI and the zero or
> more representations that may be returned when you dereference it's
> URIs.

Just so.  And this is how Topic Maps tries to handle the situation.  So 
use an identifier to identify, use a predicate to say what the relation 
is between the resource and some given retrievable URI (which might or 
might not be equal to the identifier), and you have removed the 
ambiguity.  We just need those standard or well-understood predicates.

At least the following predicates would be useful -

1) subjectIsTheThingReturnedByThisURI
2) theDocumentAtThisUriDescribesTheSubject
3) theDocumentAtThisUriIsAboutTheSubject

Confusion does tend to creep in (as rdf stands now) when http: schemes 
are used in URIs used as identifiers.  Some people think that because an 
http: scheme is specific about how it is to be dereferenced, that when 
used as an rdf identifier it must be referring to the dereferenced 
representation.  But rdf actually says no such thing.

IMHO, we just need a few predicates, and not another uri scheme.

Of course, I haven't yet read the "Web Proper Names: Naming Referents on 
the Web" paper - maybe it will get me to change my thinking here, who 
knows.  Just remember, SIMPLE is GOOD.  You can't get simpler than a few 
new predicates.

Cheers,

Tom P

-- 
Thomas B. Passin
Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 19:19:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:09 GMT