Re: URIs vs. URIviews (was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-02-15)

>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