W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2000

RE: [Fwd: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..? Clarification n eeded.]

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:43:42 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F23932D@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
Cc: RDF-list <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

> It seems reasonable to me that an application doing schema directed 
> processing might have some kind of a priori knowledge of the 
> schemas being 
> used (by embedded labels, implied by the application, or 
> other means), from 
> which the URIs defined by each such schema can be deduced.

For many applications that is no doubt true.  Do you think such
a priori knowledge would be domain specific?  The sort of
application I had in mind was a general purpose tool such as a
schema directed RDF editor.  Such an editor could be generic, but
still use schema information such as domain and range constraints,
labels and comments to assist the user in creating an RDF model.   

> >So either the java api needs to change or there needs to be
> >a way to figure out the namespace.  I guess I'm uncomfortable
> >with Dan's suggestion of the parser adding statements to the
> >model - not its job to modify the model it is given really.
> OK, it's not the parser's job to *modify* the model.  But, 
> for example, 
> additional labels might be defined to be part of the model 
> defined by some 
> given syntax.  Much as having ID on a statement property is 
> sometimes taken 
> to define inclusion of reification of that statement in the 
> resulting model.

Its true that could be done.  Would that require a change to
the current m&s spec?  Which change would be better - a minor
fix to the api or to change the spec?

> >Further, independent of the API, there are situations when 
> it would be
> >helpful for an RDF processor to be able to determine the
> >namespace of a resource from its URI, e.g. when it encounters
> >a subPropertyOf property in a schema.  The processor may well
> >wish to determine the schema of the super property, e.g. to
> >determine domain and range constraints.
> Indeed.  But "in isolation" was part of my comment.  See above.

Sorry, I'm missing something;  I don't understand the significance
of "in isolation" in this context.  In isolation from what?

Brian McBride
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2000 05:43:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:24 UTC