- From: Alexander Jerusalem <ajeru@vknn.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:37:31 +0000
- To: "Nikita Ogievetsky" <nogievet@cogx.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Hmm, I think the problem with your solution is that the two statements do not have the same subject. Shouldn't it rather be something like: <rdf:Description rdf:about="12345678901234567890"> <rtm:shortname>W3C</rtm:shortname> <rtm:weburi>http://www.w3c.org"</rtm:weburi> </rdf:Description> I know that the rdf:about as above is not valid RDF, I just want to illustrate that the contents of the id should be completely meaningless. For RDF compliance it should probably be something along the lines of rdf:about="urn:12345678901234567890". At 05:39 25.11.2002 -0800, Nikita Ogievetsky wrote: >Alexander, > >This is actually one of the axioms of Topic Maps [1]. >In my RDF Topic Maps attempts [2] I am defining two RTM properties: > ><daml:UnumbiguousProperty rdf:ID="indicatedBy"> > <rdfs:subPropertyOf >rdf:resource="http://www.daml.org/2001/03/daml+oil#TransitiveProperty"/> > <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#topic"/> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"/> > <rdfs:comment>Subject Indicating Resource</rdfs:comment> ></daml:UnumbiguousProperty> > ><daml:UnumbiguousProperty rdf:ID="constitutedBy"> > <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#topic"/> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"/> > <rdfs:comment>Subject Constituting Resource</rdfs:comment> ></daml:UnumbiguousProperty> > >So that I can say in one document: > ><rdf:Description rdf:ID="w3c"> > <rtm:indicatedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3c.org"/> ></rdf:Description> ><rdf:Description rdf:ID="w3cwebsite"> > <rtm:constitutedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3c.org"/> ></rdf:Description> > >[1] http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/ >[2] http://www.cogx.com/swglasses.html > >--Nikita. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Alexander Jerusalem" <ajeru@vknn.org> >To: "Paul Prescod" <paul@prescod.net>; "Richard H. McCullough" ><rhm@cdepot.net> >Cc: "Doug Ransom" <doug.ransom@alumni.uvic.ca>; <www-rdf-interest@w3.org> >Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2002 3:55 PM >Subject: Re: a URI is a name (tel uri scheme and VCARD RDF) > > > > > > I'm not sure if the following is of any relevance for this thread but your > > discussion reminds me of a question I have always had regarding RDF: > > > > URIs, it seems to me, are used in two completely different ways: On the >one > > hand they are just unique names for something. On the other hand they are > > used to point to something and provide a kind of processing instruction > > that allows us to physically retrieve the thing it points to. Now when we > > talk about someone's homepage for example, I don't think it is appropriate > > to use the URL that allows us to physically retrieve the homepage as the > > unique name of the homepage. The two roles should be strictly separated. > > The reason is that I could have made a lot of statements about the >homepage > > that use this URI as a unique name, that is as their subject. The physical > > address, however, can change. > > > > So even for internet resources, I think we should have one URI to name it > > and another one to point at it, even if the two happen to have the same > > sequence of characters at any one point in time. > > > > > > > > At 14:48 24.11.2002 -0800, Paul Prescod wrote: > > > > >Richard H. McCullough wrote: > > > > > >>I followed the link at the bottom of this email, and read Sean B. > > >>Palmer's interesting essay on URIs. > > > > > >I'm not clear on your opinion of Doug's proposal. ;) But you did change > > >the subject line so I guess we'll treat this as a new thread. > > > > > >>For example, if we want to talk about Linus Torvalds in the context of > > >>URIs & RDFS, we might have three different somethings that we need three > > >>different names for: > > >> > > >> Linus Torvalds the person > > >> a document that contains RDFS statements that describe facts about > > >> Linus Torvalds > > >> a graph that contains nodes and links that describe facts about > > >> Linus Torvalds > > >> > > >>My impression, based on a few RDF-interest emails, is that much >confusion > > >>has been generated by trying to use one URI when three URIs are >required. > > > > > >I think that you misunderstand the debate. It is easy to make up three > > >URIs for Linus Torvalds or ten (let's not forget his home page and email > > >address and ...). The question is whether the syntactic form of the URI > > >restricts whether it refers to him, or his home page or the graph or ... > > > > > >Seth says: > > > > > > > Linus Torvalda the person > > > > http://foo/#LinusTorvalds > > > > a documdent that contains RDFS statements that describe facts about > > > > Linus Torvalds > > > > http://foo/ > > > > a graph that contains nodes and links that describe facts about > > > Linus > Torvalds > > > > http://foo/#ThisGraph > > > > > >But an equally consistent position is: > > > > > >Linus Torvalds the person > > > > > > http://foo/LinusTorvalds > > > > > > a docudent that contains RDFS statements that describe facts about > > > Linus Torvalds > > > > > > http://foo/LinusTorvaldsInRDF > > > > > > a graph that contains nodes and links that describe facts about Linus > > > Torvalds > > > > > > http://foo/LinusTorvaldsGraph > > > > > >Insofar as RDF care NEITHER about the syntax of the URI _nor_ the data > > >referred to by the URI, why should WE care? Why impose a syntactic > > >convention at all? RDF offers me ways of saying that InRDF is the RDF > > >representation and Graph is the graph representation of the LinusTorvalds > > >concept. If Seth wants to use his convention then he can, but he should > > >also use RDF statements to make explicit the relationship. > > > > > > Paul Prescod > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 12:38:19 UTC