• 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 19:06:54 +0200
• In-reply-to: <005d01c2492c$997e5fe0$1fc8c8c8@mitchum>
• References: <005d01c2492c$997e5fe0$1fc8c8c8@mitchum>
• Sender: larsga@p...
• User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1

* Bill de hÃ?ra
| 
| Deciding to conflate locators and identifiers in RDF isn't
| interesting when there are no locators in RDF to begin with. I donÂ?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.

Maybe. This is just hairsplitting over what the string "RDF" denotes,
though. It doesn't affect the original point in any way.

-- 
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: patterns vs. identifiers
• 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