• To: "'Lars Marius Garshol'" <larsga@g...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 15:10:03 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <m3hehopft8.fsf@p...>
• Organization: Propylon
• Reply-to: <bill.dehora@p...>

> Lars Marius Garshol
>
> * Bill de hÓra
> | 
> | RDF does not use URIs as locators. Search for 'logical constant' in 
> | the Model Theory draft.
> 
> The RDF Model Theory does not, that is true, but RDF 
> applications very much do. 

Hang on a minute. The distinction doesn't exist in RDF. I'm not
disputing it exists elsewhere. 

In no uncertain terms, the fact that an identifier used in RDF is
deferenceable is a coincidence. RDF does not have a hypertext retrieval
model a la the web; this 'feature' has been discussed  to death on the
RDF lists. 

What foaf or anything else build on RDF, does with links in the interim
are their own business, more  power to them I say. But when it gets to
code that infers over an RDF graph, the applications you're talking
about are working with identifiers.

regards
Bill de hÓra
..
Propylon
www.propylon.com 

 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: namespace reprise
• Next by Date: Re: namespace reprise
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread