• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: many-to-many
• From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 22:15:09 +0000
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE5E@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE5E@h...>

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote,
> 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.

That's right IMO.

> 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.

Well, they tried. After all the title is "Uniform Resource Identifiers: 
Generic *Syntax*". But somehow or other a couple of paras of something 
else crept in and have been causing trouble ever since. If they were 
just snipped out it'd be no great loss.

> Another example of doing less is more?

Could be ...

Cheers,


Miles

• References:
  • RE: many-to-many
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• 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