Re: Coordination with RDF Core

From: Dan Brickley ([email protected])
Date: 07/09/01

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Frank van Harmelen wrote:

> pat hayes wrote:
> > I would like to see the 'URI' point retained in the document. The
> > more the coreWG gets its node rubbed in this issue, the better :-)
> The URI point from Peter's notes stated:
> >  - what is a URI? - syntax and semantics
> URI syntax is specified in by Tim et al.
> so I don't really see the substance of that part of the complaint.
> (The RFC describes the syntax that is common to all URI schemes,
> and the scheme-specific details of the syntax are/should be specified 
> in other places, seems reasonable to me).
> Concering semantics, the same document says:
> "A Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) is a compact string of characters
>    for identifying an abstract or physical resource."
> I've always understood that URI's are simply globally unique names,
> (which I think is pretty much what Tim's RFC says). In terms of our model-theoretic semantics, are URI's not simply the elements of AD, and that's it? 

That's the basic idea. However there are some remaining areas of debate
surrounding URIs. For example: can the same URI string name a different
resource at different times? Can it (sometimes) fail to refer, etc. These aren't
RDF Core's particular problem, but they're the sort of question that RDF
implementors raise. 


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST