- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 18:32:08 -0600
- 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. > > >> >snip >>>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: >>>http://www.apache.org/~fielding/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html). >>> >>>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. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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