W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2003

Re: RDDL again

From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:51:04 -0700
Message-ID: <3EE95838.70603@textuality.com>
To: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>

Paul Prescod wrote:
>>> 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:

I dislike it because it treats nature and purpose asymmetrically.

>  a) of Dan's point that your declarations do not bind appropriately to 
> the actual resource being described

I disagree.  I claim that rfc2396.txt has a nature (.../text/plain) and 
a purpose (...#normative-reference).  Yes, I acknowledge that the other 
model also works, but it's not clear that it's better, and it maps less 
directly onto the use pattern of looking things up by nature/purpose.

>  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?)

So that you can get a graph linking the original resource and the 
related resources, and not have to resort to indiection to know what's a 
nature and what's a purpose.

>  c) Your goal seems to be the declaration of types of things and the 
> RDF/DAML world has its own ways of doing things.

Actually, I don't care, since it has no effect on the RDDL syntax, which 
what I *do* care about.  If the RDF experts decide that Dan's approach 
is correct, I certainly won't argue at any level beyond this email.  My 
approach certainly maps better onto the way I think about nature and 
purpose, but I may be in a minority.

Cheers, Tim Bray
         (ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 00:51:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:55:59 UTC