RE: URIs

Frank,

> This isn't to deny the usefulness of being able to 
> dereference a URI and get something useful (or to be able to 
> find the RDF or OWL describing a vocabulary when you're 
> trying to process statements employing that vocabulary).  I'm 
> merely pointing out that RDF and OWL were deliberately trying 
> to use URIs as pure names, and leave the interaction with Web 
> retrieval for additional work.  Now all we need to do is do it :-)

Thanks for the comments.  From what you referenced, it seems clear that
RDF/OWL deliberately avoided "the processing issue".  But do you know if
there is any plan to standardize this.  From what I know, the lack of a
processing model for XML document has already incurred a lot of problems and
TAG is trying to do something about it.  IMHO, the lack of a processing
model will eventually raise inconsistency in RDF model as well.  Because in
practice, I just cannot help of thinking about it, becaues how an RDF will
interpret a model will determine how I develop and deploy my models.  I
guess this "lack of specification" is also what propels Alan to start this
dicussion thread on the URIs.

Xiaoshu

Received on Monday, 19 June 2006 17:31:57 UTC