- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 13:17:40 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote: > At 08:59 AM 11/7/01 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > >> > In which case, I think you're flying in the face of existing RDF >> > practice. >> >> Well, yes, I'm aware that folks say things like >> the string "Dan Connolly" wrote a mail message >> and I hope we can show/convince folks that this is >> not a good idea. > > > I think it's fine to educate people that it's not a good idea, but with > the current understanding and use of RDF I think we should allow it to > be legitimate RDF which *can* be interpreted as the designers intended. > > I think it's a fair trade-off that a fully-generic RDF processor > (reasoner?) cannot access the intended meaning without supplying some > additional information, which may be awkward to do. > > So the statememt: > > <http://www.ninebynine.org/> dc:creator "Graham Klyne" . > > should be allowed to be consistent with: > > <http://www.ninebynine.org/> dc:creator > [ a foaf:Person ; foaf:name "Graham Klyne" ] . > > even if it doesn't, of itself, convey the same information. From my experience, there lies madness. I wonder if I can convince folks who haven't walked in my shoes for the last few years... In this case, there's just one author of that web site; let's presume we've communicated that formally... then we have something that's both an rdfs:Literal and a foaf:Person. I would think those classes are disjoint. Then there's the "turtles all the way down" problem... if literals work that way in the case of dc:creator, do they also work that way in the case of foaf:name? i.e. is [ a foaf:Person; foaf:name "Graham Klyne" ] consistent with [ a foaf:Person; foaf:name [ rdfs:value "Graham Klyne" ] ] or something? can I do it again with rdfs:value? when do we get to the bottom? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 14:17:43 UTC