- From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:46:53 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-06-12 7:23, "ext patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: > >> ...instead, we (ie the RDF coreWG) assume that the W3C will >> eventually have the good sense to declare that a certain namespace is >> *globally* understood to be 'rdf-invisible', in that any triples >> which use urirefs from that namespace are not asserted in any RDF >> graph. > >Sorry to rain on the parade, but this is nonsense. Namespaces >are not significant nor represented in the RDF graph, and there >is no formal relationship between a URI and whatever namespace >prefix was used to hack it into the RDF/XML serialization. > >Basing the designation of dark triples on namespace distinction >is impossible, since that distinction is an illusion. Then the entire WWW is an illusion. I will leave others to draw a conclusion about that. > >C.f. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Jun/0172.html > >If you wish to simply say that the use of namespaces to trigger >an RDF parser to flag such statements as dark, well, fine, but >let's please be clear that it is a syntactic mechanism and not >a semantic one, and to that end, I can think of a number of >other possible (and IMO better) syntactic mechanisms for >indicating dark triples that are not based on namespace prefixes. > >But saying "any triples which use urirefs from that namespace" >is nonsense since urirefs have no namespace. They are URIs, >not qnames, and they are fully opaque. > >Presuming that triples have some indication of being dark >which is not based on namespaces, such as a simple bit, >then we're OK, and can proceed with dark triples and >the introduction of the proposed layering tweaks to the MT. > >But there are *no* namespaces in the RDF graph. None whatsoever. Well, sorry, but *that* is nonsense. If there are no namespaces in the RDF graph then there is no connection between any RDF graph and the RDF + RDFS vocabulary, so all of RDF(S) is meaningless. Maybe we are using 'namespace' in different senses?? I just mean a set of URIs that belong to someone (in this case, the W3C). > >> (6) Does this require any changes to syntax/ test cases/ Ntriples/ >> datatyping/ whatever? >> A: No. > >I don't see how it would not. We would need a mechanism in RDF/XML >for setting the dark bit on statements and also an explicit >representation of that bit in NTriples (such as ';' rather than '.'). No, that is not the proposal. > >But that probably is not a great amount of work, and likely >could be done in a backward compatable manner. > >[In case it's not clear, I'm pretty much in favor of providing for > these layering tweaks to the MT and elsewhere, so long as they > are not based on reference to namespaces] I do not follow your reasons for objecting to the idea of a set of URIs having an owner. Isnt that a given, in all these discussions? 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 Wednesday, 12 June 2002 12:46:57 UTC