- From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 21:58:01 +0000
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@csail.mit.edu>
- CC: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>, "aldo.gangemi@gmail.com" <aldo.gangemi@gmail.com>, Conor Shankey <cshankey@reinvent.com>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Ora Lassila <ora.lassila@nokia.com>, Toby A Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Pan, Dr Jeff Z." <jeff.z.pan@abdn.ac.uk>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, "sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk" <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>, "michaelalang@gmail.com" <michaelalang@gmail.com>, Michael Lang <michaelallenlang@gmail.com>, John Graybeal <graybeal@mbari.org>
Tim,
Looking at
http://www.w3.org/2006/link#obsoletes
I notice that no domain and range are specified, nor are there any examples of use. So if a URI http://example/new-term obsoletes a URI http://example/old-term , and we have (in n3):
@prefix : <http://www.w3.org/2006/link#obsoletes> .
# Statement 1:
<http://example/new-term>
:obsoletes <http://example/old-term> .
# Statement 2:
"http://example/new-term"^^xsd:anyURI
:obsoletes "http://example/old-term"^^xsd:anyURI .
Which of statement #1 or statement #2 would best illustrate the intended usage of :obsoletes?
In my view (according to my understanding of the RDF semantics), statement #2 would be correct. Statement #1 would be incorrect (or at least not what that author probably intended) because it is making a statement about the resource *denoted* by the URI http://example/new-term -- not a statement about the URI itself.
David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office | dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software
Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 22:00:31 UTC