One other question I think we should specifically ask the TAG for clarification . . . > > From: Miles, AJ Alistair) > > . . . > > 1. The class of 'information resources'. > > > > It would be useful if the TAG were to coin a URI for the class of > > 'information resources' . . . . > > > > The implied TAG position is that the meta-classes rdfs:Class, > > owl:Class and rdf:Property are all disjoint with the class > > tag:InformationResource, and therefore expected HTTP behaviour for > > members of these meta-classes is clearly specified by the TAG > > resolution on httpRange-14 [5] (i.e. they MUST return 303). Is tag:InformationResource owl:disjointWith anything? If so, what? The TAG's httpRange-14 decision[5] seems to say that a 2xx response from a URI such as http://example.org/xyz should be interpreted as authoritatively asserting something like: http://example.org/xyz rdf:type tag:InformationResource . However, should it also be interpreted as authoritatively asserting that http://example.org/xyz is *not* also something else, i.e., that tag:InformationResource is owl:disjointWith something else? The URI minting rule described in the httpRange-14 decision[5] says that the rule is "for the sake of removing ambiguity". But asserting that http://example.org/xyz *is* a tag:InformationResource only removes ambiguity in a *closed* world, because it allows one reach a different conclusion depending on whether an assertion is known to be true or not known to be true. Under the open world assumption, no ambiguity is removed unless being a tag:InformationResource *also* implies http://example.org/xyz is *not* something else, i.e., unless tag:InformationResources is owl:disjointWith something else. [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jun/0039.html David BoothReceived on Monday, 30 January 2006 15:32:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 27 January 2023 01:58:25 UTC