RE: rdfs:isDefinedBy (Was Re: Representing DCMI semantics as RDF schemas versus Web pages)

 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patrick
> Stickler 
>
> On 2002-06-06 15:08, "ext Bill de hÓra" <dehora@eircom.net>
> wrote: 
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org 
> >> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patrick 
> >> Stickler
>
> >> Of course, to some folks, that's either blithering 
> nonsense or heresy 
> >> (or both)  But hey, it's a free world, and they're free to 
> be wrong 
> >> ;-)
> > 
> > They're not wrong. You won't find URI schemes in the RDF graph
> > any  more than you'll find XML namespaces.
>
> 
> I don't disagree with you at all Bill. In RDF, URIs are 
> always fully opaque.
> 
> So that, ahem, also precludes folks guessing namespace URIs 
> to slurp in more RDF schemas, eh?

Yes it does. It might preclude using HTTP at all, not that it's
actually going to stop anyone. Any access to or loading 3rd party
RDF is application specific precisely because there is no normative
way to get from a URI ref to a HTTP GET in RDF. The obvious way,
parse out the URI ref scheme and take your chances, is in
contradiction with treating URIs as logical constants. To do that
would be a similar kind of 'lifting' that resulted in some
protracted discussions on this list and rdf-core wrt Literals last
year. It's a neat trick, but it's a trick (but we knew this
already, right?).


> Obviously, there's a division between the RDF level and the 
> application level, and yes, URIs are fully opaque at the RDF 
> level. But at the application level, it is fair to examine 
> them to do things. I'm simply then a proponent of more 
> precise and reliable methods of deteriming what such actions 
> should be.

Well, since RDF has no processing or retrieval model, such methods
are always going to be prescriptive. Perhaps more empiricism and
analysis is called for.

Bill de hÓra


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4

iQA/AwUBPP+BZeaWiFwg2CH4EQJG3ACgkcIW0BJnFtRGjw/MMUtzAxPO29IAnimg
efr1y0wduPBFnmf37VK9CYau
=Jw4H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 11:38:32 UTC