• 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 15:58:15 +0100
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <m3znvgmg5w.fsf@p...>
• Organization: Propylon
• Reply-to: <bill.dehora@p...>

> [mailto:larsga@p...] On Behalf Of Lars 
> Marius Garshol
> 
> Would you mind explaining a bit more? I.e., do you have any 
> point to make beyond agreeing with me that RDF does not make 
> the distinction?

I'm not agreeing with you, you've agreed with me:

You said:

> 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. 

I called you on that; RDF does not use them in both ways. Then you
qualified:

> The RDF Model Theory does not, that is true, but RDF
> applications very much do. 

I echoed:

 The distinction doesn't exist in RDF. 

because RDF (as opposed to RDF apps and RDF syntax) is defined in the
Model Theory; that is, when we speak of RDF, we're talking ultimately
about the what's specified in the MT. As far as I can tell, you changed
your mind mid thread. So how am I agreeing with you?

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: patterns vs. identifiers
• 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