W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > April 2001

Re: Proposal: 'tag' URIs

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 16:18:02 +0100
Message-ID: <002701c0cff6$84b47fa0$04dc93c3@z5n9x1>
To: <uri@w3.org>
> The question is what can URIs do that URNs can not.

The question is are:-

   :Tag rdfs:subClassOf :Urn .
   # or
   :Tag rdfs:subClassOf :Uri .

Where it should be noted that because:-

   :Urn rdfs:subClassOf :Uri .
   rdfs:subClassOf a daml:TransitiveProperty .

   { { :x rdfs:subClassOf :Urn .
     :Urn rdfs:subClassOf :Uri }
     log:implies
     { :x rdfs:subClassOf :Uri } log:forAll :x , :Urn , :Uri } .

In other words, do "tags" introduce any specific semantics outside of
that constrained by URNs? If not, then they should be URNs because it
is useful to reuse the semantics, and if so they will have to be URIs.
Hmm... I guess that would actually be something like:-

   <> log:forAll :p , :q , :T , :N .
   { :p :propertyOf :T . :T a :Tag .
     :q :propertyOf :N . :N a :Urn .
     :p daml:disjointFrom :q }
   log:implies
   { :T daml:disjointFrom :N } .

Or something or other.

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
:Sean :hasHomepage <http://purl.org/net/sbp/> .
Received on Saturday, 28 April 2001 11:19:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:02 UTC