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

RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)

• 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 12:55:28 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <m3fzx8qzmt.fsf@p...>
• Organization: Propylon
• Reply-to: <bill.dehora@p...>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: larsga@p... 
> [mailto:larsga@p...] On Behalf Of Lars 
> Marius Garshol
> 
> Hmmm. I think you can use URIs as identifiers without getting 
> into difficulties over whether you regard them as locators or 
> identifiers. RDF uses URIs in both ways, but the core RDF 
> model does not make a distinction between these two cases. 

RDF does not use URIs as locators. Search for 'logical constant' in the
Model Theory draft.

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: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• 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