- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 11:54:27 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 11:56 AM 12/14/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>> There is nothing anywhere in RDF that assumes that a uriref has >>> anything at all to do with whatever happens when you use that uriref >>> in an HTTP protocol. >> >>Well, there is for example this text in a draft of one >>of the RDF specs: >> >>"The social conventions surrounding use of RDF assume that any RDF URI >>reference gains its meaning from some defining individual, organization >>or context. This applies most notably to RDF predicate URI references. " >> -- >>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Dec/att-0053/00-rc#section-authority > >That doesn't refer to HTTP, though, right? The defining authority is using >the urirefs in names in *its* RDF , same as everyone else. Er, well... The next paragraph says: [[ These social conventions are rooted in the URI specification [URI] and registration procedures [URI-REG]. A URI scheme registration refers to a specification of the detailed syntax and interpretation for that scheme, from which the defining authority for a given URI may be deduced. In the case of http: URIs, the defining specification is the HTTP protocol specification [HTTP], which specifies how to use the HTTP protocol to obtain a resource representation from the host named in the URI; thus, the owner of the indicated DNS domain controls (observable aspects of) the URI's meaning. ]] But note: nothing here impacts the formal semantics; this talks about the social and technical conventions whereby URIs may gain authoritative meaning or intended interpretation. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Sunday, 15 December 2002 06:50:50 UTC