RE: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
> [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
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format