- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 14 Jun 2002 08:15:09 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
First, what Graham said: On Fri, 2002-06-14 at 02:13, Graham Klyne wrote: [...] > >Since reserving a vocabulary effects the meaning of RDF, the authority to > >declare a uriref or urirefs 'reserved' in this sense rests with the > >W3C. A uriref or set of urirefs is reserved only if it is declared to be > >so by a W3C Recommendation. In particular, reserving a vocabulary cannot > >be done by simply asserting on a webpage that it is to be considered > >reserved. There is no way to state in RDF, or any language encoded in RDF, > >that a uriref is reserved, or for any RDF document to entail this as a > >consequence. > > My more substantive comment: some folks are going to have to implement > this stuff, and the above statement doesn't really help them. Therefore, I > think the spec should state up-front the form of URIs that won't be > asserted. To alleviate the issues of URI-inspection, I think we could > limit the form to something like: > > http://www.w3.org/2002/06-rdf-unasserted#<foo> > > where values of <foo> must be documented in W3C recommendation track > documents. Second, would somebody please show how this helps with layering? i.e. show how it relates to the example in... # Layering OWL on RDF: the case for unasserted triples Jonathan Borden (Thu, May 30 2002) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0145.html and/or the 5 "Indicative Statements and Inferences" in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002May/att-0022/01-_all.htm ? I remain unconvinced of the utility, let alone necessity, of unasserted triples in any form. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 09:15:03 UTC