- From: Chimezie Ogbuji <chimezie@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:08:31 -0500
- To: wangxiao@musc.edu
- Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org, "Mikael Nilsson" <mikael@nilsson.name>
On Nov 25, 2007 2:06 PM, Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu> wrote: [..snip..] > In httpRange-14's eye, the meaning of a message is not > solely dependent on what the message is but also on how the message is > delivered through the web. RDFa's and GRDDL's RDF is *delivered* from client side, just like fragment identifier, it doesn't count. Actually, the case with GRDDL is not delivered solely from client-side, since the GRDDL result RDF is calculated by a mechanism that includes the possibility of dereferencing subsequent URIs mentioned in the content of the message. So an entire GRDDL result seems fair game for the 'meaning of the message' and for every information resource that had representations fetched, the rules for checking that inconsistency would also apply (however, note that http://www.w3.org/TR/grddl/grddl-rules3.n3 doesn't make use of - or seem to need - a term that denotes the class of IR). I'm just trying to think of how this translates from the abstract (where this topic has mainly remained) to an actual implementation of a "conforming" semantic web agent. > I am very curious about the question that I raised in my document. > Which one of the following assertion true? > > (1) <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> a awww:InformationResource. > (2) <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource> a awww:NonInformationResource. > > Of course, I am assuming, > > awww:InformationResource owl:disjointWith awww:NonInformationResource. I would think neither is true (or consistent) since a Resource is a class whose extension is the unbounded set of all possible referents (the union of IRs and non-IRs is a proper subset of rdfs:Resource). -- Chimezie
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2007 21:08:43 UTC