RDF Issue rdf-equivalent-uris

• From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:57:02 +0000
• To: eric@openly.com
• CC: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
• Message-ID: <3BEFF14E.2080608@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Eric,
In
   https://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
   https://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
   https://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