- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:58:56 -0400
- To: "www-rdf-interest@w3.org" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jon Hanna wrote: >>&rdf;type and &rdfs;label seem like pretty good identifiers to me, and >>they don't have to be retrievable - and if they were, they would not >>denote the retrieved thing. > > > There is no fragment identifier within the document obtained from > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns, though I seem to remember that > rdf:ID was once used there (there were still issues in treating that as a > fragment identifier). Still at least dereferencing > http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns will tell me that: > > <rdf:type> <rdf:type> <rdf:Property> . > <rdf:type> <rdfs:isDefinedBy> <rdf:> . > <rdf:type> <rdfs:label> "type" . > <rdf:type> <rdfs:comment> "The subject is an instance of a class." . > <rdf:type> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:Class> . > <rdf:type> <rdfs:domain> <rdfs:Resource> . > > And dereferencing http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema will tell me that: > > <rdfs:label> <rdf:type> <rdf:Property> . > <rdfs:label> <rdfs:isDefinedBy> <rdfs:> . > <rdfs:label> <rdfs:label> "label" . > <rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment> "A human-readable name for the subject." . > <rdfs:label> <rdfs:domain> <rdfs:Resource> . > <rdfs:label> <rdfs:range> <rdfs:Literal> . > > So not perfect by my view of what should be done here (I would tend against > using # to end RDF namespaces anyway) but not bad either. > Right, and you have demonstrated that it can be useful to try to dereference a namespace URI, and sometimes to try to dereference URIs used as identifiers for rdf resources. I don't deny that at all, but it's different from saying that a namespace _denotes_ the dereferenced document (namespace URIs denote nothing outside themselves), or that a URI used as an rdf resource automatically and always _denotes_ the thing pointed to. Not only that, but there seems to be at least one error in the document - <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type"> That should be "<rdfs:Property ...>" instead. Interesting. In addition, recall that in rdf, there is no unique way to split up a uri into a namespace part and a specific part. Rdf only requires that the concatenation comes out to the right URI reference. So our exemplar uri reference here, http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type can rdf-legally be partitioned as we normally think of it - {http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#}type or {http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22}-rdf-syntax-ns#type or {http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rd}f-syntax-ns#type The point is, you can't really determine even a namespace to try to dereference in the hopes of getting some useful information except by using heuristics that are not specified or sanctioned by the Rec. Like I said, it's trickier than it looks. Cheers, Tom P -- Thomas B. Passin Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books) http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 22:56:31 UTC