W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > September 2007

RE: AWWW Mechanism for Interpreting use of RDF Symbols was - Re: ISSUE-58: Scalability of URI Access to Resources

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:09:28 -0400
Message-ID: <EBBD956B8A9002479B0C9CE9FE14A6C203292236@tayexc19.americas.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Chimezie Ogbuji" <chimezie@gmail.com>, <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Cc: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, <www-tag@w3.org>

> From: Chimezie Ogbuji
> [ . . . ]
> The context is important IMHO.  If the RDF document has assertions
> (rdfs:isDefined By for example) that are unambiguously understood to
> point to a model-theoretic pipeline (if you will), then it would be
> prudent for agents to go in that direction.  Otherwise, you simply
> don't know, and follow-your nose would be the next best thing.

Incidentally this is precisely one of the reasons why I think it is
important architecturally to distinguish between a URI declaration[1]
and other assertions about the URI's associated resource: so that an
agent can know whether it already has the URI declaration that it wants,
and thus should look no further to find one.  To put it differently, for
a given URI, an application would normally only ever want to use one
declaration of that URI, whereas an application may well want to combine
many sets of assertions about the URI's resource.

1. URI declaration: http://dbooth.org/2007/uri-decl/

David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not represent
the official views of HP unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2007 20:09:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:17 UTC