W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: URGENT: train wreck coming, action needed. (was: Fwd: URI-CG group chartered)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 18:32:08 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b27bab3d3985d1e@[]>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>pat hayes wrote:
>>(Im CCing this to people outside the RDF Core WG as the issue is 
>>much larger than just for RDF.  Please be selective in CCing 
>>replies in order to avoid cross-list postings, thanks. -Pat)
>I'm restricting this to RDF Core.

Yeh, I didnt restrict my last riposte, but I will in future.

>>>Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 19:30:47 +0100
>>>To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>>>From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
>>>Subject: URI-CG group chartered
>>>FYI, the URI CG is now officially chartered.
>>>   URI Coordination Group
>>>   http://www.w3.org/2001/12/URI/
>>>"The mission of this group is to coordinate ongoing work in the area of
>>>Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs); to serve as a coordinating body of
>>>all issues involving URIs in the W3C and act as the coordinating body
>>>for URI issues with other groups.
>>>Back in the mists of 2002, I volunteered to act as RDFcore liaison 
>>>for this group.
>>>As yet, there's been little activity.  It might be worth noting 
>>>that Roy Fielding is working on a revision to RFC2396 (version 
>>>available at: 
>>>The IETF URI BOF (a week or so ago) also had some discussion or IRIs.
>>>There were a couple of things raised at the IETF meeting that may 
>>>be of relevance to RDFcore:
>>>(1) a suggestion that "resources" don't exist unless a URI is 
>>>defined for them.  (I raised an objection to this --because we 
>>>have bnodes-- which was somewhat brushed aside with "If RDF has a 
>>>problem with URIs its RDF's problem not URI's problem.  Since the 
>>>matter is more philosophical than of practical import, I don't 
>>>think it's a big deal.)
>Pat's objections seem well-taken to me.  But I'd like to describe 
>this from a slightly different perspective (or maybe it's the same 
>perspective, but a different vocabulary).  If I take the "Semantic 
>Web is making the Web like a giant database" analogy, it seems to me 
>that saying that a resource doesn't exist (in the Web) unless a URI 
>is defined for it is like saying that a resource doesn't exist (in a 
>database) unless there's a row for it:  say, in a "Resources" table. 
>Or if you like more specific examples, saying that a Person doesn't 
>exist unless there's a URI defined for it is like saying that a 
>Person doesn't exist unless there's a row defined for it in the 
>database's Person table.  Among other things, this seems like the 
>mother of all closed world assumptions.

Right, and I think it is the same basic point. Things like OWL make 
it even more acute, though, since there you can *prove* that things 
exist that you have no URI for. So I guess it would follow that their 
URI exists even though you don't know what it is, which even if true 
isn't much actual use.


IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 19:33:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:21 UTC