RE: Discussion-Paper: A Logical Interpretation of RDF

At 07:18 AM 9/5/00 +0100, McBride, Brian wrote:

> > A second aspect comes from the formal model itself:
> > "1. There is a set called Resources. "
>I don't recall the formal model saying that a resource must
>have a uri.

A point.  (One that I think could be important, but I'm not sure if others 
think so)

I think you're right that the formal model described in RDFM&S does not 
assume a resource has a URI.  BUT:

(a) the supporting text seems to assume this, in that the only way offered 
by the supporting text to indicate a resource is via its URI.

(b) There has been some discussion about the relationship between URIs and 
resources.  (I think we may have discussed this briefly in Amsterdam.)  Tim 
BL and Dan Connolly assert that URIs and resources are 1:1, in which case 
the existence of a resource requires that there be exactly one 
corresponding URI.  Another point of view is that there may be multiple 
URIs for a given resource, in which case one can always invent one that is 
only visible within the local context of the RDF model concerned and use 
that, if no globally visible name is provided.

     Either of these approaches can work for me, but I'd like to see the 
wider community express a consensus about the relationship between URIs and 
resources.  Part of the problem is, I think, that most of the time this 
URI/resource relationship simply doesn't matter so there's no need to argue 
it out.  But I have a feeling that it's in situations like this -- 
formalizing RDF behaviours -- where such issues become significant.

     And finally:  maybe there's a way for both of these views to coexist?


Graham Klyne

Received on Tuesday, 5 September 2000 04:51:38 UTC