- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:26:41 +0200
- To: ext Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-15 3:57, "ext Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com> wrote: >> I'd like to hear from the folks with knowledge of user communities >> (PRISM, DC, CC/PP, ...) their reaction to this suggestion. > > I've explained this to the Dublin Core and they are continuing to use (as > they have always done) namespaces without '#'s. I've held off making any particular comments to this thread, both because I think Brian's suggested resolution is OK (not that there isn't an issue) and because even if we wanted to try to tackle this, it's probably out of scope (certainly for this WG under the current charter). There seem to be two issues here (1) URIrefs or just URIs, and (2) should vocabulary terms be denoted by URIrefs or just URIs. These are not the same. We should not change RDF's present view regarding #1. URIrefs are essential. We cannot resolve #2, it is out of scope and it is not RDF's task to dictate such things. I do, though, agree with Aaron that the use of URIrefs to denote vocabulary terms is just plain wrong (even silly). Vocabulary terms are abstract entities, which may have various definitions in various web resources (schemas) which can be pointed to by URIrefs, but "live" above and outside of any given MIME encoding or specific stream of bytes (for the record, I think DC is doing things the "right" way by not using '#' in vocabulary term URIs ;-) Yes, I know that's topic of hot debate and many folks think differently -- which is why I didn't choose to muddy the waters of this particular thread with such a debate (let's take it outside ;-) -- Anyway, let's drop this debate, please, at this time and in this context. We won't resolve it. We will only waste valuable cycles. I think we can all agree that there is a problem, but we won't fix it by changing RDF -- because even if some feel that '#' in vocabulary term URIs is wrong, we still need to be able to describe fragment resources, so URIrefs are not wrong in general and Brian's proposed resolution, deferring this known problemmatic issue to the TAG or other WG is, I think, the right way to go. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 02:25:16 UTC