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

Re: web proper names

From: Chris Purcell <cjp39@cam.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:59:21 +0100
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
To: "Hamish Harvey" <david.harvey@bristol.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <33584F8E-0BE7-11D9-AC90-000A957B97EE@cam.ac.uk>

> This debate has caused a decided shift in my understanding of this
> issue. There follows a summary. Comments and flames the very purpose of
> posting. Am I missing the point? Making some rudimentary mistake?

If you are, so am I. I was just going to post a similar message when 
yours appeared. I don't agree with all your conclusions, though.

> It is here that the need for this distinction seems clearest. Witness:
>
> <http://www.paris.org/Monuments/Eiffel> ex:resultOfDereferencing
> <http://www.paris.org/Monuments/Eiffel> .
>
> at which point meaning disappears up its own anus. It isn't clear that
> there is anything in the world of the web that can be the result of
> dereferencing itself.

One could accuse you of excess pedantry here. ex:resultOfDereferencing 
as a predicate can mean "the subject is the result of shoving the URI 
of the object through any known, applicable de-referencing mechanism". 
This is quite clear, and will confuse neither generic RDF engine nor 
any software which understands the predicate.

Many existing RDF applications have the implicit assumption:

     for all x that can be de-referenced, <x ex:resultOfDerefencing x> 
holds

and that this assumption violates the statement in the RDF Primer:

     RDF uses URIrefs only to identify things, while browsers also use 
URIrefs to retrieve things

However, we don't need to conform to this requirement in the definition 
of ex:resultOfDereferencing.

Chris
Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2004 16:00:13 GMT

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