W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > August 2001

RE: Summary of the QName to URI Mapping Problem

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:00:27 +0300
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114BFB6@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> >The core mechanisms of RDF *must* preserve the integrity of all data.
> That is obviously impossible. Nothing, and certainly not RDF, can 
> preserve the integrity of ALL data. There are probably still some 
> COBOL files out there with data in them, for example. All that any 
> RDF engine can possibly do is to preserve the integrity of all data 
> *which are presented to it in legal RDF*.

Everyone seems to totally misunderstand what I mean by the above

I'm *not* saying that RDF must ensure the correctness of knowledge, or
that it must prevent contradictions, or that it ensures all knowledge
is complete. I.e. I'm not saying that RDF must ensure that we have
"perfect" knowledge. I'm not talking about *knowledge* at all. I'm
talking about *data*.

What I'm saying here is that no matter how much RDF knowledge is
interchanged, no matter how it is syndicated with other knowledge,
no matter what its source, that all instantiations of that knowledge
occurring in any graph anywhere must be the same, without the
introduction of ambiguity based solely on known shortcomings of
the mechanisms used for serialized interchange. I.e. the whole point
of adopting URIs as global identifiers of resources was so that 
we wouldn't have collisions of semantic identifiers when trying
to syndicate knowledge from arbitrary sources in a semi-chaotic
global SW, no?

Apparently there seems to be a sore spot about the *other* issue,
namely the perfection or quality or accuracy of knowledge, so much
so that folks aren't able to see that I'm not, nor ever was, talking
about that, even when I re-re-re-clarify that I wasn't several times
over. Sheesh.

> >If RDF wishes to e.g. require that namespace URIs used for RDF
> >serializations *must* end in a non-name character, fine. But so
> >long as it is legal and possible for two sources to define qnames
> >in total ignorance of one another which may collide and introduce
> >ambiguity into the knowlege base, then this is an unnaceptable
> >state of affairs.
> Do you think it is unacceptable that two programs might be unable to 
> communicate when one of them is using HTTP and the other is, in total 
> ignorance of the other, using PPTP?

You have missed my point entirely. And I don't know how I can restate
it any more clearly than I have.
> >Think global.  Think chaotic.  Think WWW.   Eh?
> I think it is best for all concerned if I decline to respond to that.
> >The present mapping function works fine for closed systems where
> >all content is owned and controlled by a single authority, but
> >that's *not* how the SW is supposed to work!
> To publish a spec and invite anyone who wants to, to use it, is not 
> 'owned and controlled' by anyone, let alone a single authority. 

Eh? What? Did I say *RDF* was controlled by a single authority. I don't 
think so. Read again.

> If 
> you think the SW is going to work by the liberal use of pixie dust, 

If you got the impression from my postings that my views with regards
to these issues are not firmly grounded in the real-world and that
my concerns and communications to the RDF community have not been 
motivated by interests relating to the real-world implementation
and deployment of tools and systems utilizing RDF and SW technologies,
then you should perhaps be a bit more careful in your reading.

You have consistently misunderstood the majority of the content of
my postings and proceeded to take issue verbosely on things that were
never said and IMO never implied. Either I need to work better on 
communicating or you need to read a little more slowly and objectively
(probably both).

> then I had better sell my Nokia stock.

You are certainly free to do as you like, but if you did so based solely
on your own misunderstandings of my postings, then that would IMO be rather 



Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Software Technology Laboratory        Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center                 Video:  +358 3 356 0209 / 4227
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2001 03:00:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:36 UTC