- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:55:08 +0100
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > > As far as I understand freenet URIs have an owner, who often wishes to > > > remain anonymous. (Hence the use of freenet). > > > > > > Thus, putting too much weight on URIs having an authoritative owner > > Where do we put any weight on that? > Sorry: (that's a funny fragID) http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-RDFDifference also third para of http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-Interaction Here is the current text: [[ The social conventions surrounding use of RDF include the idea that each URI 'belongs to' somebody who has authority and responsibility for defining its meaning. The social conventions are rooted in the URI specification [RFC2396] and registration procedures [RFC2717]. A URI scheme registration refers to a specification of the detailed syntax and interpretation for that scheme, from which the defining authority for a given URI may be deduced. In the case of http: URIs, the defining specification is the HTTP protocol specification [RFC2616], which obtains a resource representation from the host named in the URI; thus, the owner of the host's DNS domain controls (observable aspects of) the URI's meaning. ]] and [[ RDF assumes that for any URI some individual or organization has the authority to define the meaning of that URI. An RDF predicate is defined by the individual or organization with such the authority with respect to the its URI, and misuse by others should not be permitted to undermine that authority. ]] while the text could do with polishing, I think the idea is, at least in part, needed, for our resolution of the rdfms-assertion issue. http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion [[ Resolution: On 23rd August 2002, the RDFCore WG resolved: that the text in section 2.3.2 of the Concepts and Abstract Data Model document resolves this issue and it be closed. ]] The text referred to in that resolution is found in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/att-0002/02-Overview .htm#section-Social which reads [[ RDF/XML documents, i.e. encodings of RDF graphs, can be used to make representations of claims or assertions about the 'real' world. RDF graphs may be asserted to be true, and such an assertion should be understood to carry the same social import and responsibilities as an assertion in any other format. A combination of social (e.g. legal) and technical machinery (protocols, file formats, publication frameworks) provide the contexts that fix the intended meanings of the vocabulary of some piece of RDF, and which distinguish assertions from other uses (e.g. citations, denals or illustrations). [[[This needs reviewing...]]] For example, a media type, application/rdf+xml [RDF-MIME-TYPE] is being registered for indicating the use of RDF/XML that might be published with the intent of being such an assertional representation (as distinguished from other XML or text that may just happen to look like RDF assertions). ]] ++++++++++ The key problem here is that the issue resolution really only talks about a single RDF document making an assertion. The editors have bravely tried to extend this issue resolution to multiple related independently authored RDF documents which when combined have slanderous entailment. (See particularly: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/#section-InteractionExamp le ) To make that work then the idea of a URI owner is needed, and this idea seems, somewhat problematic. However, a single document is hardly a semantic web! And without text such as that I am questioning, we could end up with the situation where in the clown example none of the original authors are liable but someone who sucks up that part of the semantic web and spits it out as a single document then has a legal liability! Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 13:55:31 UTC