Re: [URI vs. URIViews] draft-frags-borden-00.txt

> >Morning chaps,
> >
> >A gentle reminder about the role of rdf-comments.  Its a list where folks
> >can send messages formally to the WG.  Discussion to clarify the meaning
> >of a communication is fine, e.g.
> >
> >   Here's and issue
> >     - not sure what you meant - this or that
> >     - other
> >     - ok registered as issue foobar.
> >
> >But its not the place for an extended technical discussion.  Its nice for
> >us who to implement process stuff, not to have to wade through reams
> >of techy
> Techy?? TECHY????
> >discusion to find what we are looking for.
> >
> >rdf-interest or rdf-logic would be good places.
> Sorry, indeed we should move this. Jonathan, Id suggest switching it
> to rdf-logic, that OK with you?

Yes and no. My last response does contain specific issues that I would like
clarified. Brian has asked the TAG to clarify these issues, but I think the
TAG may want some more specific issues to clarify rather than "what is a
resource". My latest questions are intended to raise specific architectural
issues depending on what the response of the RDF WG is.

That is to say, I seriously do expect RDF to be able to make statements
(include URIrefs in triples) about URIs which reference non-RDF XML and HTML
documents (as the current RDF rec says). Such a change, if this is intended,
will seriously undermine the usefullness of RDF to me, and will have serious
IMHO effects on the utility of OWL if based on RDF.

On the other hand, much of the back and forth, is of a more academic nature
regarding how many resources can dance on the head of a Unicorn, and
appropriately moved to rdf-logic.


Received on Sunday, 24 February 2002 20:36:02 UTC