W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: checked RDF semantics for XSD stuff, couldn't grok namespace entailment

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 10:55:18 +0200
Message-ID: <008401c2a4e0$db9f6080$eb9316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 14 December, 2002 01:41
Subject: checked RDF semantics for XSD stuff, couldn't grok namespace entailment

> | We do not make any assumptions about the relationship
> | between the denotation of a uriref and a document or
> | network resource which can be obtained by using that uriref
> | in an HTTP transfer protocol.
> Again, that overstates the case. 'We' the formal semantics
> editor don't make any such assumption. But we the RDF
> Core WG do expect that URIs will usually be used in RDF
> consistently with their use in HTTP, HTML and other conventional
> contexts. This is what the intro to the semantics says;
> directly only briefly, but indirectly thru the concepts
> doc more elaborately.

I myself prefer the current wording. The question of consistency
of interpretation between the SW and Web is anything but clear,
so I don't find it justified or helpful (or wise) for the WG
to expect something which is arguably uncertain and unclear.

The Web is able to stumble along with ambiguity in the interpretation
of URIs whereas the SW is not. The whole open debate as to what
e.g. http://www.w3c.org/ denotes (an organization, a web site, a
home page, a location, etc.) should be ample motivation for us
to steer clear of taking any stand on this issue. It's not RDF's
place to dictate to other Web standards, and unless the RDF Core
WG can say clearly what the consistent use of http://www.w3c.org/
is for both RDF and HTTP, we should not assume any relationship
(even if we would hope and expect there might be).

> | It has been argued that urirefs in the form of HTTP URIs
> | should be required to denote the document that results from
> | such a retrieval.
> I don't know why you point out that misconception;
> the more architecturally consistent view is that
> it denotes a thing that, when sent GET messages,
> sends you back a document.

Ahhh... that's refreshing, a consistent view that concedes
that HTTP URIs actually denote locations from where things
are obtained rather than the actual things obtained ;-)

Well, if that really is the emerging concensus view, and
folks are OK then with http://www.w3c.org/ then not denoting
the W3C or the W3C web site or a web page, but simply denoting 
a location on the web from which things can be obtained, great. 
I would consider that exceptional progress...

If not, then we certainly should keep the wording above as
it is...

Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 03:55:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC