• 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 17:05:11 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <m3ptwcmep6.fsf@p...>
• Organization: Propylon
• Reply-to: <bill.dehora@p...>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: larsga@p... 
> [mailto:larsga@p...] On Behalf Of Lars 
> Marius Garshol
>
> Not when I speak of RDF. The MT is just a specification, and 
> alone it doesn't do anything. A view of RDF that ignores the 
> use of RDF is not very interesting.

Deciding to conflate locators and identifiers in RDF isn't interesting
when there are no locators in RDF to begin with. I don?t see what being
achieved here except muddying the waters. An application might well use
URIs to locate RDF but that process is not RDF, nor is it a use of RDF.
Most probably it's a use of the web.

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: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Next by Date: RE: patterns vs. identifiers
• 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