W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Action: #rdfms-identity-anon-resources questions

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 23:31:04 +0100
Message-ID: <3B5CA5A8.BFBC422E@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
CC: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Graham Klyne wrote:

> I think the assumption that the URI denotes a specific resource is somewhat
> empty if one has no other knowledge about the resource thus denoted.  As
> Pat pointed out, in this situation you can do no more than infer that such
> a resource exists.

If I use that resource twice, in one case I'd expect to use the same resource
twice, in the other, I could not have that expectation.

> >   o provenance: when a source of rdf states some properties about
> >     a resource named by a URI it is making assertions that the
> >     resource named by that URI has those properties.  when a source
> >     of rdf states properties about a variable, it is making no
> >     assertions about the name of that resource.
> The detailed form of the argument here depends a bit on whether one assumes
> that URIs:resources are 1:1, or if several URIs can identify the same
> resource.  But either way I assert that two URIs can ultimately refer to
> the same thing in the domain of interpretation.  Thus, assertions about a
> resource named by a uniquely-generated URI MAY be referring to a resource
> that is elsewhere known by a specified URI.  This seems to be the same as
> information that one has about a resource identified by a variable.

A sends signed rdf containing anon node to B.  It matters whether A or B
generates the URI.  If B generates it, A has not signed that name->resource

Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 18:33:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC