OOPS Re: SemWeb use case for issue httpRange-14

I confused 89 and 130.   Darn /dev/random.    This is a complaint
about 130.

> > On Tue, 2002-12-31 at 12:35, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > > Let's call this odd
> > > hybrid approach #89.
> > 
> > What's odd about it? It's clearly the way the Web
> > works, and consistent with all the specs (RDF, HTTP,
> > HTML, not sure about XLink/XPointer) as written, no?
> 
> It's how the works in an informal, human way, but it doesn't seem
> amenable to  machine processing.
> 
> To rephrase, approach #89 says that the denotation of an http URI or
> URI-Reference is EITHER a living-document-like-thing (a maintainable
> collection of information) or a domain-of-discourse thing which is the
> subject (apparent and/or intended -- that's another issue) of the
> document-like-thing.
> 
> Consider the RDF graph 
>    _:sandro n1:likes <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/>
> and assume you know that _:sandro is me.  You don't know if it's
> saying I have the "n1:likes" relationship with the web page or with
> the consortium.
> 
> But then the schema for n1:likes tells you its range is web pages, so
> now you know.
> 
> But then you come across 
>    _:eric n2:likes <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/>
> and the range of n2:likes is organizations.   Organizatons and web
> pages are disjoint in my ontology, so we have a contradiction.
> 
> To generalize, any RDF graph which tries to use the URI as both a
> subject identifier and a page identifier (with non-trivial ontologies
> for each) will be inconsistent.  This is likely to occur in lots of
> real systems, especially as graphs are merged unpredictably.
> 
> Do you see a way out of this?
> 
>   -- sandro

Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 06:05:42 UTC