[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 16:37:31 +0200
• In-reply-to: <002901c2491c$846a0dd0$1fc8c8c8@mitchum>
• References: <002901c2491c$846a0dd0$1fc8c8c8@mitchum>
• Sender: larsga@p...
• User-agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1

* Bill de hÓra
|
| Hang on a minute. The distinction doesn't exist in RDF. I'm not
| disputing it exists elsewhere.

So we agree.
 
| In no uncertain terms, the fact that an identifier used in RDF is
| deferenceable is a coincidence. RDF does not have a hypertext
| retrieval model a la the web; this 'feature' has been discussed to
| death on the RDF lists.
| 
| What foaf or anything else build on RDF, does with links in the
| interim are their own business, more power to them I say. But when
| it gets to code that infers over an RDF graph, the applications
| you're talking about are working with identifiers.

As far as I can tell you are saying that you agree with the premise of
my posting and that you disagree with the conclusion I draw from that,
but you fail to give any reasons for your disagreement. 

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?

-- 
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: RDF Interpretation of XML documents (was Re: [xml-d
• 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