Thanks Joe. That makes a heckuva lot more sense to me. Gotta love the math. I then have to wonder why the fuss? len -----Original Message----- From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > But that doesn't fix the problem. As I said before, > the issue comes up in the context of RDF attempting > to use URIs for one to one mappings. It would seem > that if they are using a name which must map, they > must be responsible for specifying the selector > mechanism which as you point out on the Web, is > the protocol technology (eg, HTTP). What does > RDF do at that stage of identifying? RDF -- the new version of 12 Nov 2002, not the original -- handles URIs fairly sensibly, I think. In the new RDF model, URIRefs are atomic, logical constants; no assumptions are made about the nature of resources [*]. An RDF graph is just a graph; it has no intrinsic meaning beyond the graph structure. URIs label nodes and edges, nothing more. Any additional meaning ascribed to the graph comes from an "X-interpretation," for various values of X, and, for the most part, "X-interpretations" are Outside the Scope of This Document. [*] This is somewhat true of the original M&S Rec as well, but reading the original I get this persistent, nagging feeling that an RDF triple *must* be saying *something* about *something*. I don't get that feeling reading the new version. Less metaphysics, more math; a big improvement.
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