- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 00:55:19 -0700
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Tim Bray wrote:
>
> 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.
Isn't that its rdf:type, rdfs:Class or owl:Class or even some new
concept like rddl:role-type?
<> <http://www.rddl.org/purposes#normative-reference>
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt> .
<http://www.rddl.org/purposes#normative-reference> <rdf:type>
<rddl:purpose>.
I prefer Dan's formulation because:
a) of Dan's point that your declarations do not bind appropriately to
the actual resource being described
b) RDF always says things are related so a statement that says nothing
more strikes me as sort of wasted (why not say how they are related?)
c) Your goal seems to be the declaration of types of things and the
RDF/DAML world has its own ways of doing things.
Paul Prescod
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 03:55:48 UTC