RE: New draft finding on issue namespaceDocument-8


I have taken a swift read through [1] and have a few comments to offer.

1) It's not clear to me what the message of the document is. As a
'finding', what is it that we have 'found' and what advice are we trying
to convey to readers of the finding?

2) In the preface it speaks of "The names in a namespace can, in theory
at least, be defined to *identify* anything or any number of things." 

It's that troublesome word identify again. "refer to", "designate",
"denote", "distinguish from all other things"? Hmmmm.... 

And "unique denotation..." which seems to be a design intention of URI
usage on the web... has that gone? "...or any number of things" above.

3) Still in the preface:

	 "In the absence of any other information, a logical place to
look for these 
	resources, or information about them, is at the location of the
	URI itself."

Are we accepting this pun? It seems to me that in some cases folks get
quite stressed about URI being used to denote multiple things and in
other cases the same folks can seem quite relaxed. I'm very confused
about where folks want this to land!

4) In Section 2: RDDL nature seems largely to be aligned with internet
media type's expect perhaps for XML based documents.  I'm a little
trouble by:

"For example, the URI is used to specify
that a related resource is an HTML4 document,..."

It certainly may be expected to be an HTML4 document, but we say in
other writings that it is meta-data returned with a representation is

5)  "If a URI identifies a nature, is it coherent to say that it also
identifies a HTML document, a media type or a namespace?"

I think that "identifies" as the relation remains troubling. Maybe there
is a different relation than identity that one can speak of. I suppose
it could be coherent in an OWL/SemWeb sense if a thing can
simultaneousely be a nature as well as being some other kind of thing -
feels like a bit of a fudge though.

6) "We deal with both of these issues in our model by introducting a
new, *anonymous resource*." 

The RDF term is a blank node or a bNode (I believe). There is some
subtelty about bNodes in that they are not simply nodes whose URI name
is unknown. They are regarded more as existential variables. Would have
to gave a closer look at rdf-mt [2] to refresh my memory.

7) "The namespace is related to this anonymous node by its purpose."
  a) it is not clear whether 'its' is intended to refer to the namespace
or the bnode. The narrative suggest the bnode while the diagram suggests
the bnode.
  b) 'purpose' arc on the diagram suggests that the bnode is a purpose
of the namespace. In fact I think that the intend is that purpose of the
ancilliary resource attached to the bnode is convey by the particular
subproperty of purpose used in a given case. Anyway, given it's name the
purpose arc seems to me to be backwards.

8)  2nd diagram: doc book example. 
	defguide.html and docbook.xsd mentioned in the narrative are
missing from the diagram.


Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks
RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [] 
> On Behalf Of Henry S. Thompson
> Sent: 05 October 2007 13:06
> To:
> Subject: New draft finding on issue namespaceDocument-8
> Hash: SHA1
> Norm Walsh and I have produced a new draft [1], responding to 
> problems some commentators had with the proposed RDF model.  
> Comments welcome.
> ht
> [1]
> - --
>  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, 
> University of Edinburgh
>                      Half-time member of W3C Team
>     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 
> 131 650-4440
>             Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail:
>                    URL: [mail 
> really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is 
> forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
> iD8DBQFHBiidkjnJixAXWBoRAlm/AJ9NdzccjfKsAubMVblv1ThKd2MIowCeMq0x
> wV7191Vn12sry7qEsCFFzq4=
> =yYBE

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 16:17:11 UTC