- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:06:55 -0400
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > Frank Manola wrote: > >> Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >>> I do not believe that this has any substantive content, but is merely >>> aesthetic! > >> >> Aesthetic possibly, but it also has implications on apparent >> consistency. > > > Agreed. My message wasn't intended to indicate that this would be an > acceptable inconsistency at last call. Merely that at this stage it > shows stylistic choices in presentation that the WG needs to agree on. Fine. > > It is clear that the primer editors need to be in on that agreement. > > What other docs talk about the nodes in the graphs and their labels? > Probably all of them? > Which use nodes and node labels, which treat the label as the node? > The syntax doc for one; it talks about URIs labeling the nodes. > >> >> A couple of minor questions about this: >> >> a. if, in the current model theory, some nodes *are* URIrefs, rather >> than being *labeled with* URIrefs, why shouldn't arcs *be* URIrefs, >> rather than being *labeled with* URI refs? > > > Easy one: the nodes can be the label because there is at most one node > with any given label. That is not true of arcs. e.g. there are many arcs > labelled rdf:type. If we identify the arc with the uriref rdf:type then > it has more than two ends. > It has more than two beginnings too; it's a binary relation, after all. This is one of the things we have to explain if we're not going to consistently use URIs as labels. > >> Well, I think debate is needed, not so much about which explanation is >> better, but about whether we ought to use one, and not two (or, heaven >> help us, more than two!). And I think *this* debate ought to happen >> ASAP. It seems to me that if using the basic concepts from the model >> theory causes problems for non-mathematicians, we need to explain >> things better, not introduce apparent inconsistencies about whether >> nodes *are* URIs or are labeled by them (and I suspect that the >> non-mathematicians will be the first to notice, and have a problem >> with such inconsistencies). >> > > > We clearly should have one, the question is which one? > We agree. --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 2002 08:57:07 UTC