Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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.
|
