W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2001

[www-rdf-interest] <none>

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:31:42 -0400
Message-ID: <007e01c12fe6$89b664a0$b17ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: <cg@cs.uah.edu>
Cc: "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
8a.sttls1.wa.home.com> <3B89E89A.5731187E@sun.com>
Subject: Re: CG: XML Conceptual Graphs: an open design?
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 10:26:12 -0700
Organization: http://robustai.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400

From: "Murray Altheim" <murray.altheim@sun.com>

> Ah, but there's where I won't follow your argument. My example was simply
> an example in a discussion *here*, which is why the URI didn't dereference
> to anything. You seem to deliberately ignore the scenario I'd set up that
> stated that the URI *did* dereference to an XML Conceptual Graph document.

I though if you could dereference a URI, then it was a URL ... but maybe I
got confused.  If you can make the URI into a URL, then I agree you've
kindOf solved the problem.  But then we have that other problem:  does the
URL identify the bits returned when the URL is accessed, or identify the
~thing described by~ those bits.

> Why? I dunno -- perhaps to make a different point.

Yes, sorry, there was a lot of that in my post.  Perhaps I responded with my
tirade against the wrong message.

>My point was however that
> there was something at the other end of that URI, something that was
> in describing the concept I was conveying, or pointing to such a
> And if that was an XML Conceptual Graph document, an XTM document,
> that would provide precisely the methodology that you are requiring. The
> transmission of that URI was designed to allow for the transmission of
> either identity or information about an identity. Heck, all of the URLs
> on billboards in silicon valley are based on that proposition.

Sure, URL's are great !!  They make a web because they identify things that
are ~caught~ in the web ... i.e. exist as resources in the network.  But
most of the things we want to talk about in Conceptual Graphs can't be put
into the network.  Me thinks we need that ~thing described by~ arc label as
the relationship between a Conceptual Graph node and a associated network
resourse identified by a URL.   I kindOf covered this in the graph below:


.... just a thought...

Seth Russell
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2001 13:27:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:32 UTC