[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: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@g...>
• Date: 21 Aug 2002 14:16:51 +0200
• In-reply-to: <002001c24909$b6bf7850$1fc8c8c8@mitchum>
• References: <002001c24909$b6bf7850$1fc8c8c8@mitchum>
• Sender: larsga@p...
• User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1

* 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. 

* 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. When people write things like

 <rdf:Description>
  <foaf:name>Lars Marius Garshol</foaf:name>
  <foaf:mbox rdf:resource="mailto:larsga@g..."; />
  <foaf:nick>larsbot</foaf:nick>
  <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://www.garshol.priv.no" />

it is clearly with the intention that the values of statements using
the foaf:mbox and foaf:homepage properties are to be used as locators,
but since the core model only uses the URIs as logical constants there
is no clear distinction between URIs-used-as-locators and
URIs-used-as-identifiers. 

You could, correctly, argue that that is not a distinction that exists
in RDF, but that's my whole point, because the distinction very much
exists in the larger context in which RDF finds itself, that is, the
web.

-- 
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC        <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>

• References:
  • RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Can XLink be fixed?
• 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