Re: RDDL again

My last message on the topic.

Tim Bray wrote:
 > ...
> I dislike it because it treats nature and purpose asymmetrically.

Nature and purpose are asymettrical whether you model them properly or 
not. ;)

A thing has a nature (which is to say type). A VCR is a VCR.

You are a man. Pretty much everyone would agree. That's just your 
nature. Nature is a property solely of you. On the other hand, purpose 
is a relationship between you and the person "using" you.

Your purpose to Antarti.ca is as a founder.
Your purpose to Lauren is as a husband.

Now consider these assertions:

Tim is a man.
Tim is a husband.
Tim is a founder.
Lauren is a wife.
Antartica is a company.

The first statement is fine but all of the rest discard important 
information. For all the computer knows, you are the husband of 
Antartica or the founder of Lauren.

>>  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). 

It is a normative reference to some specs and an informative reference 
to other specs. If you don't make the link explicitly then how will it 
get made? Dan raised this earlier and I don't think you answered 
directly. I think that Dan's model makes the purpose type information a 
little harder to find but the other model really discards important 
information.

On the other hand, you are right that RFC2396 is ALWAYS text/plain, 
wherever it is referenced.

And by the way, should rddl:nature map to rdf:type? I really don't know 
what rdf:type is for if not to say that "RFC2396" is a "text document" 
or "foo.css" is a "CSS document." When does one use which of 
RDF/RDFS/OWL's various type mechanisms? And when does one invent ones own?

  Paul Prescod

Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 09:48:04 UTC