- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 17:04:30 -0500
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-14 5:02 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: > >>> 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?? > >Please see my explanation to DanC. I read it, but I don't follow it. I get the impression that vested interests are grumbling at having to rewrite code, but (a) I don't know why they have to and(b) I don't really care. I still don't know what the *technical* problem is here. Is there a technical problem, in fact, or is this purely a political issue about who controls a definition? > >>> 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?? > >Seems I must have been unclear, since you misunderstood me too. I meant >people choosing identifiers for new terms and vocabularies. > >> My goal is prevent URIs becoming completely unusable in web ontologies. > >Then this is fine, since I'm trying to make sure everyone uses URIs. Only >folks who are not using URIs are affected here. I really don't follow the distinctions being made, or understand what the problems are. Suppose I use some wierd way, known to all RDF software, for referring to things inside RDF ontologies on the web. If I give one of these wierd ways to a browser, maybe, it doenst know what to do with it. So? Who gives a damn? It couldnt do anything with it in any case, its not an RDF engine; it handles HTML. My RDF inference engine can't understand HTML either. So what is the problem? > >> Wait a minute. Whats the 'bug' here? If RDF (and DAML and OWL and...) > >I don't think RDF and DAML were _required_ to use fragments in their >identifiers, and OWL has been required to do just the opposite in their >requirements: > >DanC recently vehemently defended this requirement: >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Feb/0028 Maybe you didn't see my reply to that. :-) >So OWL _must_ use URIs, and thus are safe from this change. > >> 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. > >I showed how you can identify the thing that most people mean with a URIref >in my proposal. Are you talking about something else? OK, but as far as I can see, your proposals are no better than the use of #, they are just longer, require more typing, and make an already virtually unusable notation even more unusable. So why bother? > >> That >> four-triple monstrosity is unusable, in particular. > >Well, we could define the current usage as syntactic shorthand for it. > >I have other proposals in my response to Brian's message. I think this may >be the least of our problems... I still don't see what the actual problem is. 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 Friday, 15 February 2002 17:04:27 UTC