RE: RDFTM Disposition of Comments (RDFTM-DC001)

* Peter Patel-Schneider
|
| No, I don't think so, and this goes to the heart of some of my other 
| comments about the interoperability survey.  The meaning of RDF is 
| defined by the RDF semantics, not the syntactic details of RDF graphs.

I understand. This was discussed today on the SWBPD telecon and as
a result I have replaced all references to RDF Concepts with references
to RDF Semantics, which I hope will go at least part way to satisfying
you ;-)

The Survey was approved as a WG Draft today and a new version will
be posted (and announced by Ralph Swick) as soon as the necessary
administrativia have been undertaken.

| A resource in RDF is a member of the domain of discourse.  Nodes in RDF 
| graphs map to resources.  It is true that nodes have at most one URI 
| reference associated with them, but the mapping from nodes to resources 
| is many to one, so resources in RDF can have multiple URIs "associated" 
| with them.  It is also true that RDF has very few capabilities (maybe 
| none?) for forcing two nodes to map to the same resource, so it is 
| difficult (impossible?) in RDF to force a resource to have more than one 
| URI associated with it.

Thank you for confirming this. It was as I suspected.

Steve

--
Steve Pepper <pepper@ontopia.net>
Chief Strategy Officer, Ontopia
Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
Editor, XTM (XML Topic Maps 1.0)

Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 19:13:07 UTC