- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:22:21 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Jon Hanna wrote: I think the way to > extend RDF to deal with this is to define a predicate that defines the > relationship between the resource identified by the URI and the zero or > more representations that may be returned when you dereference it's > URIs. Just so. And this is how Topic Maps tries to handle the situation. So use an identifier to identify, use a predicate to say what the relation is between the resource and some given retrievable URI (which might or might not be equal to the identifier), and you have removed the ambiguity. We just need those standard or well-understood predicates. At least the following predicates would be useful - 1) subjectIsTheThingReturnedByThisURI 2) theDocumentAtThisUriDescribesTheSubject 3) theDocumentAtThisUriIsAboutTheSubject Confusion does tend to creep in (as rdf stands now) when http: schemes are used in URIs used as identifiers. Some people think that because an http: scheme is specific about how it is to be dereferenced, that when used as an rdf identifier it must be referring to the dereferenced representation. But rdf actually says no such thing. IMHO, we just need a few predicates, and not another uri scheme. Of course, I haven't yet read the "Web Proper Names: Naming Referents on the Web" paper - maybe it will get me to change my thinking here, who knows. Just remember, SIMPLE is GOOD. You can't get simpler than a few new predicates. 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 Monday, 20 September 2004 19:19:27 UTC