- From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:32:17 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
><snip> >> Maybe we are using 'namespace' in different senses?? I just mean a >> set of URIs that belong to someone (in this case, the W3C). > >But what is the formal connection between a term and that collection >of terms? Why does there have to be one? >Where in the graph do we see that relation? Where is >that collection explicitly denoted in the graph as produced by >*every* conformant RDF parser? It isn't. I don't WANT this connection to be in the graph. If it were, then putting it there or not putting it there would be an option; and as soon as it is an option, someone is going to change it in a graph somewhere, and then things go nonmonotonic. >You seem to be missing some pieces to your puzzle, Pat. > >Yes, the W3C defines a functional vocabulary called RDF, and >another called RDFS, and yes, the terms of those vocabularies >are grounded in the same XML namespace for each vocabulary, >and yes, the namespace URI is taken to denote those functional >vocabularies, Fine. That is all we need. > *BUT* in the graph itself, there is *no* explicit >representation of the relationship between term and vocabulary >which is accessible to any RDF application. > >Show me where I'm wrong. You aren't wrong, but it doesn't matter. I don't want this to be represented in the graph. It should be *impossible* to infer, in RDF, that some uriref is reserved. >(and no fair peeking into URIs either, those are opaque, no?) They are referentially opaque, but if Im a software agent I can certainly look at them. They are just character strings, after all. And I can check whether or not they are in some list I might have of reserved character strings. That list, of course, came from God: I was born with it inside me. My creator just knew about those strings. I guess he had read some W3C spec or other. > >> >>>> (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. > >That's *my* proposal. OK, I vote against that for the reasons outlined in the message that Guha and I sent about nonmonotonicity. > >> >>> 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? > >You've misunderstood me. I have no problems with a set of URIs having >a single owner. OK, then, that is all we need to make this work. Only the W3C has the authority to reserve a vocabulary that the W3C owns. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)322 0319 cell 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 12:32:19 UTC