- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 11:31:34 +0300
- To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-archive@w3.org, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
On Mar 31, 2004, at 11:17, ext Jeremy Carroll wrote: > You may be right, "you are IMO just us much out on the fringes of, or > beyond, RDF-land", ;-) > let's hear Pat ... he's back from his travels. Let's. Patrick > > > Jeremy > > > Patrick Stickler wrote: > >> 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 > > -- Patrick Stickler Nokia, Finland patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 03:35:38 UTC