• To: 'Miles Sabin' <miles@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: many-to-many
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:00:19 -0600

Ok.  That makes sense.  The model is the selector and 
there can be many selectors (I know that is not official 
terminology but I am comfortable with that).

Then, the IETF 2396 spec can't formally map to RDF.
It has terms which have no equivalents.  It is as if the 
authors should have separated the syntax specification for 
creating the URI from any spec for a means of using it 
as an identifier in a process of separately specified 
identification.

Another example of doing less is more?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Miles Sabin [mailto:miles@m...]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote,
> Still, none of that fixes the RDF problem which as I understand it,
> and correct me if I am wrong, demands a one to one mapping.

Only in a specific context, as specified by a model. But there can be 
many models, so there's no unique fixed referent to be denoted across 
all contexts, so no role for an abstract Resource.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: many-to-many
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: many-to-many
• Next by Date: Re: many-to-many
• Previous by thread: RE: many-to-many
• Next by thread: Re: many-to-many
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread