- From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 08:21:14 +1000 (EST)
- To: "David Booth (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
- Cc: Michael F Uschold <uschold@gmail.com>, aldo gangemi <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>, "Dr Jeff Z. Pan" <jeff.z.pan@abdn.ac.uk>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, sean bechhofer <sean.bechhofer@manchester.ac.uk>, michaelalang@gmail.com, Michael Lang <michaelallenlang@gmail.com>, John Graybeal <graybeal@mbari.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@csail.mit.edu>
----- "David Booth (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com> wrote: > 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. What would be incorrect about a third version the referred the current URI to the xsd:anyURI (or string) form of the obsolete URI? I didn't think RDF semantics made comments about the meaning of the URI but I haven't studied them in depth. In many cases it would be the actual resource denoted by the old URI that was obsoleted, as much trouble as that gives to people who believe the denoted resource to always be existentially somewhere. Where are the semantics of N3 that enable statement 2 to exist defined btw as a matter of interest. I have just never seen an explanation of the meaning of "literal resource literal" triples in the context of an otherwise "resource resource resource/literal" RDF world. Cheers, Peter
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 22:54:56 UTC