W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2003

Re: RDDL again

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 02:06:35 -0700
Message-ID: <3EE6F11B.6090609@textuality.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:

> Hmm... I still think the way purpose is handled isn't what
> you want/mean... e.g.
> <> rddl:related <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> ;
> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> rddl:nature <http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/plain> ;
> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> rddl:purpose <http://www.rddl.org/purposes#normative-reference> ;
> RFC2396 is a normative reference *for rddl*. I'd expect that to be
> written:
> <> <http://www.rddl.org/purposes#normative-reference> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> .

This has come up a few times and it's not a slam-dunk either way.  These 
  kinds of discussions are really hard without a whiteboard to draw 
graphs on...  your assertion immediately above contains a little bit 
less information than my version: it doesn't tell you explicitly that 
the #normative-reference property is a rddl:purpose.  You could infer 
that from the fact that it's attached to rddl.org/purposes, but that 
doesn't work because anyone should be able to make up their own purpose 
and name it via their own URI.  For example, if Antarctica wanted to 
define a bunch of resources that, given a namespace URI, invoked code 
that produced on-screen maps of documents in that vocabulary, it's 
unlikely that that purpose are going to be rddl.org/purposes, they'd be 
over at antarctica.net/whatever.

Now if you *know* what purpose you're looking for, you can just look for 
a property of the form

<namespace-I-care-about> <purpose-I-seek> <related-resource>

and there's no further problem.  But this bothers me, because it weakens 
the central RDDL notion of lookup by nature & purpose.

The question is whether you think it's worthwhile to know that a 
property you're asserting about a related resource is a RDDL 
nature/purpose without having to do any inferring.  My formulation 
retains that information simply and directly.  If you decide you don't 
care to retain that, then your formulation is fine.
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 05:07:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:38 UTC