Re: [pedantic-web] Re: The OWL Ontology URI

On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 15:25 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Let me give an intuitive case in support of the Nays here. An RDF  
> graph is a set, which is not the same as a document, for sure. The  
> *same* graph can be encoded in a variety of different syntactic forms.  

Meanwhile, the same resource can have a variety of representations.

> Consider two documents, one in RDF/XML, the other in NTriples,  
> describing the same graph. If we identify the document with the graph  
> it describes, then these have to be the same.

But if we say that those documents _represent_ the graph,
they don't have to be the same.

>  But they aren't the  
> same. So even if a graph is an information resource (and I agree that  
> one can make out a case for that position), it certainly isn't the  
> same information resource as any document (In RDF/XML or NTriples or  
> any other notation) that represents it syntactically.

But it can be represented by them.

>  So, one ought to  
> use redirection to refer to it, according to http-range-14.

I don't see that this follows.

>  So,  
> whether its an information resource or not is kind of moot, since even  
> if it is, it can't be directly identified by a URI which returns a 200  
> code.
> 
> Pat


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 11 May 2010 18:00:56 UTC