- From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjekje@ifi.uio.no>
- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:36:03 +0100
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: nathan@webr3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On Friday 18. March 2011 22:45:33 David Booth wrote: > 2. Because this kind of ambiguity of reference is inescapable (though > the example is an extreme case), so we have no choice but to learn to > deal with it. So, what you're saying is "relax, whether it is an RDF Graph or an RDF Document is not important to specify, ambiguity is inescapable and can be useful"? I can see that point, and I appreciate the arguments that you make. However, it still seems that accepting this means accepting what webarch calls a URI Collision. Also, I very much appreciate Sandro's clean sheet terminology. This new terminology is unfortunately not currently available as normative reference, and for such a simple protocol as we currently discuss, I feel that we should be able to specify it clearly enough for all practical purposes without. There are two points that I feel has not been answered yet, and that's whether the apparent conflict that I think I see between the usages of RDF Document and RDF Graph are real, is the ambiguity real? And if so would a URI collision be acceptable? Whatever may be the case, I think that a discussion of these muddy waters does not belong in the specification in question. This is something that could be implemented by thousands of developers, and we need to make sure we do not scare anyone away (as hard as that may be). Best, Kjetil -- Kjetil Kjernsmo Ph.d. Student, Semantic Web kjekje@ifi.uio.no http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/
Received on Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:36:41 UTC