- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 18:02:51 -0500
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>I notice that Brian seems ready to close all the little naggling issues. I >think this is great but I don't want to see some issues drop thru the >cracks. Particularly, I'm worried about the URI-vs-URIviews issue, which I >thought we agreed to put on the issues list, but I don't seem to see it. > >Specifically in: > >> 16: Issue rdfms-fragments >> >> Propose: >> >> o The WG resolves that the meaning of absolute >> URI's with fragment ID's is a matter of web architecture and >> beyond the scope of this WG and that this issue be closed. >> >> >> See: >> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments > >I really can't agree with this. It's our problem that RDF uses this >non-standard piece of Web architecture, and in doing so has incurred all >sorts of problems. If we're going to be the Resource Description Framework, >we need we're actually describing resources. My ideal resolution would look >like: > > o The WG resolves that the use of absolute URIs with fragment IDs is a > to identify Web resources is relatively incompatible with current Web > architecture. In what way?? > o We recommend that RDF users refrain from using '#' in their Resource > identifiers and namespaces. Aaargh!! No, we don't. Such use is ESSENTIAL. How else can one ontology use the names used in another ontology?? >RDF developers and tool creators may present > a warning to the user when using resource identifiers with '#' in them. > > o We understand the need to identify portions of Web entities (data used to > describe a resource, such as the data returned when making an HTTP GET > request). We recommend that they identify such Resources using something > along the lines of: > >_:x rdf:type web:Fragment . >_:x web:resource <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist> . >_:x web:fragID "w3cMediaType-1" . >_:x dc:date "2002-02-14T13:03Z" . > >My goal is to: > a) raise awareness about the problem while > b) maintaining backwards-compatibility but > c) lay the ground work for future WGs to fix this bug My goal is prevent URIs becoming completely unusable in web ontologies. > >[...later...] >> (d) choose namespace names that end in non-xml-name-characters >> such as / # ? > >I think perhaps we should provide some warning about using # in namespace >names, dependent on the resolution of rdfms-fragments. > >you're-not-getting-off-that-easy-'ly yrs, Wait a minute. Whats the 'bug' here? If RDF (and DAML and OWL and...) are required to use urirefs for all identifiers, and if urirefs have no way to be [a name as used inside another ontology which is in turn identified by a URI], then the entire semantic web is dead in the water. This absolutely MUST be possible somehow. Syntactic problems with URI formats are a comparatively unimportant technical issue. I would be very unhappy indeed if we were to go on record as deprecating the use of # if there isn't anything else to take its place. Without that, or something equivalent to it, web ontology use is impossible. And it had better be reasonable to use. That four-triple monstrosity is unusable, in particular. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 18:02:51 UTC