W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2002

Re: the idea of a 'reserved' vocabulary

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
Message-Id: <1024060510.14588.42.camel@dirk>

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)

and/or the 5 "Indicative Statements and Inferences" in



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:13 UTC