- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 23:43:53 -0600
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 10:19 PM, pat hayes wrote: >>> RDF documents do not DESCRIBE fragments. They USE them. >> >> I have a triple: >> >> ex:John rdf:type <http://www.example.org/#Dog> . >> >> I grab http://www.example.org/, it's an RDF document that says (in >> part): >> >> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Dog"> >> <dc:description>a dog, an animal with four legs</dc:description> >> </rdf:Description> >> >> According to the URI spec (via the links I cited), the #Dog is an XML >> element. > > Wait a minute. What are you saying here? Are you DESCRIBING that > syntactic thing that starts with a hash sign and has four ascii > characters, or are you USING it to refer to something? Well, I'm defining it. That's a form of description, I guess. > If the latter, what language do you take it to be in (and whose > semantic rules you will use to help determine what it refers to)? > Myself, I would use RDF, seeing as it occurs in an RDF document. In > which case, the URI spec is irrelevant, since the entire body of all > URI (and XML) specs ever written do not say anything at all about what > it is that fragIDs must be used to refer to. And in that case, > http://www.example.org/#Dog is a class (of dogs). '#Dog' is an XML > element. Er, they do. That's what I just pointed out. According to the URI spec (and its references I cited) http://www.example.org/#Dog identifies the XML element (<rdf:Description rdf:about="#Dog">...</rdf:Description>). And according to the RDF spec that URI identifies a class. Which is it? Perhaps I'm doing a poor job of explaining my argument; it sounds like I haven't gotten through. -- Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com] "Curb your consumption," he said.
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 00:43:52 UTC