- 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