W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > March 2004

Re: version for review

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 10:49:21 +0300
Message-Id: <EBBB861F-82E7-11D8-9969-000A95EAFCEA@nokia.com>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


On Mar 30, 2004, at 15:12, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>>> Section 8.1: "We require [the value of the swp:signatureMethod 
>>>> property]
>>>> to be a literal URI, which can be dereferenced on the Web..."
>>>> Question, what is the difference between a URI and a literal URI? Do
>>>> you mean rdfs:range xsd:AnyURI?
>>>
>>>
>>> xsd:anyURI I think - a literal URI denotes itself in the RDF Model 
>>> Theory and hence can then be used for dereference operation, whereas 
>>> a URIref node denotes a resource, presumbably the same resource as 
>>> that for which you get a representation when you dereference it, but 
>>> that takes us well into the social meaning issue, that we are trying 
>>> to skirt around.
>> But wouldn't you be *wanting* to denote the resource, the method 
>> itself?
>> Otherwise, anything said about that method would not be stated in 
>> terms
>> of that URI.
>> I don't think the range/value should be a literal. I think it should
>> be the method itself, denoted by a particular URI, which might be
>> dereferencable (or might not).
>
> In theory I agree, in practice I don't - let's hear what Pat has to 
> say on this one. In theory, whenever you use a web dereferencable URI 
> the resource denoted has a representation that is got by the URI-GET, 
> however that is not a part of RDF Semantics and I don't think it is 
> for this paper to add it.

I'm not suggesting that we add anything to the RDF semantics.

This is why I suggested that the value be a resource -- and whether
the URI denoting the resource is web resolvable or not is not 
significant
to the function of that resource -- which is simply to serve as a 
commonly
agreed method (however/wherever defined, regardless of the web).

By specifying that the value is an xsd:anyURI literal, you are IMO
just us much out on the fringes of, or beyond, RDF-land than talking
about whether the URI used resolves to a representation that defines
the method in question.

A signature method is a thing/resource, and we'd probably want to use 
RDF
to talk about that method in pretty significant detail. Using a literal
precludes that (in any practical sense).

I don't see it as any different than a vocabulary term. If it's best to
use xsd:anyURI values to denote methods, than it's just as valid to use
xsd:anyURI values to denote vocabulary terms (if literals could be
subjects or predicates, that is ;-)

Patrick


--

Patrick Stickler
Nokia, Finland
patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 02:54:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:25 UTC