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 11:31:34 +0300
Message-Id: <D1908A24-82ED-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 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

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