On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 15:31, Roland Schwaenzl wrote:
> >
> > > > I think the assumption is that [URI -> resource] is actually a function
> > > > (with unknown and evolving domain).
> > >
> > >
> > > The domain is described.
> >
> > It's not defined for all URIs.
>
> You mean the function not it's domain?
:-) Yes. Very minor point, but the set
{all URIs that identify resources}, which would be the domain, is not
static (if it's even well-defined...).
> >
> > If we allow fragment identifiers in Dublin Core, we need to accept the
> > RDF definition of their semantics. If we do not accept the RDF
> > definition of their semantics, we risk incompatibility with RDF
> > applications.
> >
> > Thats interesting.
> >
> > Is this too subtle for the abstract model?
>
> I think this needs to be addressed.
> Applications will receive metadata in a variety of encodings.
> They should know, whether a fragment is intended as indicating
> an XML element or a thing in a world, which is denoted by a URIref.
You are probably right here.
> > No, but again, the paper starts with "resources", not gadgets. So I
> > don't see where the paper becomes informal on that point.
>
> So let me be more specific: Is the use of "resource"
> in the paper the same as in RDF semantics?
Good question. Yes and no, maybe?
Maybe yes: RDF semantics says:
"The things denoted are called 'resources', following [RFC 2396] [...]
'resource' is treated here as synonymous with 'entity', i.e. as a
generic term for anything in the universe of discourse."
And RFC 2396 says
"A resource can be anything that has identity."
So it seems the definition is sort of similar.
But maybe no: The "resource" concept fills a different role in RDF
semantics. You start with the RDF nodes N, and then you have a
"interpretation" function N -> W = {all resources}. So resources are the
"universe" in a model-theoretic sense.
In the AM case, we start with the resources, and descriptions in the
real world, and then try to define this interpretation function for a
number of syntaxes.
I therefore don't really expect the AM to fill the same role as the RDF
Model Theory. Does that make sense?
/Mikael
--
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
The more things change, the more they stay the same
|