[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Re: retrievable URIs in RDF, was Re: more politi

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Re: retrievable URIs in RDF, was Re: more politics
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 15:16:22 -0400
• References: <r02000000-1026-BC099F40BD6811D7A0870003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]> <oprssgstsbezizxn@s...> <009e01c35183$41d1f3f0$6401a8c0@tbp1> <20030724013426.GE22456@m...> <00b201c35191$53370b90$6401a8c0@tbp1> <09d801c35240$c4b55ab0$b6f5d3ce@s...> <012801c3525c$28de9310$6401a8c0@tbp1> <0aee01c352b4$88e89280$b6f5d3ce@s...> <004d01c352fe$5130cf70$6401a8c0@tbp1> <0cbb01c35382$fb225150$b6f5d3ce@s...>

[Jonathan Borden]"
> For RDF/OWL applications, we can assume that when property URIrefs are
> dereferenced it will be with Accept: application/rdf+xml
>
> In that case, there is no confusion at all. RDF/OWL applications will get
> back an OWL description of the property. An OWL application understands
> exactly that the following URIref:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030331/wine.owl#TableWine
>
> which dereferences to:
>
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="TableWine">
>  <owl:subClassOf>
>   <owl:Class>
>     <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
>       <owl:Class rdf:about="#Wine" />
>       <owl:Restriction>
>         <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasSugar" />
>         <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Dry" />
>       </owl:Restriction>
>     </owl:intersectionOf>
>   </owl:Class>
>  </owl:subClassOf>
> </owl:Class>
>
> means the class of TableWine. To the RDF/OWL appliction this DOES NOT mean
> the XML element owl:Class[@rdf:ID="TableWine"] because the RDF and OWL
model
> theories define this piece of XML to be interpreted as an OWL class. That
is
> to say RDF and OWL have a very definite semantics defining an
interpretation
> of the XML and/or N-Triples syntax on which they might be based.

OK, no problem here.  And
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-guide-20030331/wine.owl#TableWine would
mean the same class even if it were not dereferenceable, would it not?  Of
course, then the app would have to find that out some other way without
loading it from the network.

Now how about plain RDF without OWL, which (as I now realize) is more what I
was thinking of?  I do not recall that plain RDF has any conventions about
this.  I have to admit, though, that restricting Accept to be
application/rdf+xml is rather a nice trick.

Cheers,

Tom P

• References:
  • more politics
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: more politics
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: more politics
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: more politics
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>
  • Re: more politics
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: more politics
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: more politics
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • retrievable URIs in RDF, was Re: more politics
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>
  • Re: retrievable URIs in RDF, was Re: more politics
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: Re: retrievable URIs in RDF, was Re: more politics
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@o...>

• Prev by Date: threads (was Re: filesystems)
• Next by Date: RE: rss regularis(z)ation
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: retrievable URIs in RDF, was Re: more politics
• Next by thread: Re: more politics
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread