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

RE: web proper names redux

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:29:17 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040929092357.032e4dc8@127.0.0.1>
To: "Hammond, Tony" <T.Hammond@nature.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org

At 11:11 28/09/04 +0100, Hammond, Tony wrote:
>Yes, I may have shot the original mail off too quickly as I see Patrick's
>MT qualifier now. However, I am still at a loss to know as to where in MT
>there is any mention of URI opacity (or not) - I just checked. (BTW, why are
>we talking about MT? Surely this doc has been superseded by the new crop of
>recs earlier this year?)

Tony,

I assume by MT you mean the Model Theory document, aka "RDF Semantics":
   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/
which *is* one of the "new crop of recs".

Anyway, URI opacity is not mentioned in so many words, but it's taken for 
granted by the nature of the maths used.  If I write a mathematical 
formula, say (a x^2+b x+c = 0), one implicitly treats all the variable 
names (a, b, c, x) as being opaque.  There's no basis for doing anything else.

>My point anyway is not that a generic RDF processor should be able to
>interpret URI structure (apart from validating that it is a URI, of course)
>but rather to say that certain URIs besides exposing the generic URI syntax
>can also expose public data if there is a standard public specification for
>the URI syntax. Applications - RDF or otherwise - are free to interpret this
>data as they so choose.

Well, you can of course do whatever you like with a URI to learn more about 
what it references, but the RDF specifications don't license such activity 
and any other RDF user/applications would be justified in disputing any 
conclusions obtained by such activity.

#g


------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 09:15:17 GMT

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