RDF Issue rdf-equivalent-uris from Brian McBride on 2001-11-12 (www-rdf-comments@w3.org from October to December 2001) (original) (raw)

Eric,

In

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Jan/0050.html

you raised an issue with the RDF model and syntax spec which was recorded in

http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-uris

as

Given web principles, there can in general be no centralised authority which defines the 'correct' URI for any given entity. Should the core RDF specs define a property that specifies two resources to be equivalent?

On 9th November 2001, as recorded in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0294.html

the RDFCore WG resolved

Whilst the WG recognises the importance of a mechanism for defining equivalence of URI's, the WG has decided it does not fit within the scope of its current charter. The WG notes that DAML+OIL has an equivalence mechanism which raises the question of which layer of the stack best suits such functionality. The WG also notes that by allowing cycles in rdfs:subPropertyOf and rdfs:subClassOf RDF Schema provides a related mechanism for properties and classes. Consideration of this issue will be postponed.

This issue will hopefully be given further consideration by a future WG with a more liberal charter.

If you have any comments on this decision, please reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org.

Brian McBride RDFCore co-chair

Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 10:56:51 UTC