- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 02:06:35 -0700
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > Hmm... I still think the way purpose is handled isn't what > you want/mean... e.g. > > <> rddl:related <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> ; > <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> rddl:nature <http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/plain> ; > <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> rddl:purpose <http://www.rddl.org/purposes#normative-reference> ; > > RFC2396 is a normative reference *for rddl*. I'd expect that to be > written: > > <> <http://www.rddl.org/purposes#normative-reference> <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> . This has come up a few times and it's not a slam-dunk either way. These kinds of discussions are really hard without a whiteboard to draw graphs on... your assertion immediately above contains a little bit less information than my version: it doesn't tell you explicitly that the #normative-reference property is a rddl:purpose. You could infer that from the fact that it's attached to rddl.org/purposes, but that doesn't work because anyone should be able to make up their own purpose and name it via their own URI. For example, if Antarctica wanted to define a bunch of resources that, given a namespace URI, invoked code that produced on-screen maps of documents in that vocabulary, it's unlikely that that purpose are going to be rddl.org/purposes, they'd be over at antarctica.net/whatever. Now if you *know* what purpose you're looking for, you can just look for a property of the form <namespace-I-care-about> <purpose-I-seek> <related-resource> and there's no further problem. But this bothers me, because it weakens the central RDDL notion of lookup by nature & purpose. The question is whether you think it's worthwhile to know that a property you're asserting about a related resource is a RDDL nature/purpose without having to do any inferring. My formulation retains that information simply and directly. If you decide you don't care to retain that, then your formulation is fine. -Tim
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 05:07:16 UTC