- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:29:26 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 06:23 AM 2/26/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >>>the syntactic structure of the URI ref. The example that I provide is >>>supposed to be "nonsensical" _only_ if you presume to interpret what the URI >>>ref 'means' based on its syntax. I am suggesting that RDF treat URI >>>references as opaque identifiers, and that it ought not be possible to >>>derive meaning by parsing the structure of the URI ref. >>> >>>To the WG: does RDF mean to say otherwise? > >Hmmm, nice one. RDF operates in the context of the web where there is a >function GET (URI, setof mimetypes) to byteseq. So far we have no formal >connection between these, but maybe having one would be helpful. That might help Euler flush out the use/mention bugs ... ;-) >>However, that identity test means that RDF needs to be able to discover >>coincidence between a uriref used in one document, consisting of a an >>absolute URL plus a fragId, and the uriref consisting of that fragId used >>in the RDF document which is retrievable by conventional web transfer >>protocols using the absolute URL. So to the extent that RDF inference >>depends on this ability to cross-identify urirefs in various documents, >>the answer is No. > >Hmmm, I think of that as a feature of the RDF/XML transfer syntax, not of >RDF per se. What comes out of the parser is absolute uris with option >frag id's - that's what's in the graph. If the model theory is the >essence of RDF, it operates on the graph and isn't bothered by this. The >graph contains only absolute URI's with opt frag id's - right? That's pretty much what I've always assumed. #g ------------ Graham Klyne GK@NineByNine.org
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 05:12:46 UTC