[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?

• To: "'Bullard, Claude L (Len)'" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: RE: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
• From: "Hutchison, Nigel" <Nigel.Hutchison@s...>
• Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 17:12:11 +0200
• Cc: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>

Actually I think this a good thing.
It means my application can process my RDF correctly even if I am not
connected to the rest of the planet.

Nigel W.O Hutchison
Chief Scientist, W3C AC Representative
Software AG
Uhlandstr 12,  D-64297 Darmstadt, Germany
Tel +49 6151 92 1207



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@i...]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 5:09 PM
> To: 'Hutchison, Nigel'; 'Roger L. Costello'
> Cc: xml-dev@l...
> Subject: RE:  Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
> 
> 
> Are they in the semiotic sense, arbitrary signs (chosen 
> by convention, and not inherently meaningful)?  
> 
> The problem of namespace dereferencing is to make a sign inherently 
> meaningful.  Otherwise, they are simply systemic and 
> can be replaced by any other sign system that provides an 
> isomorphic functionality (ie, are keys or indexes).
> 
> len
> 
> From: Hutchison, Nigel [mailto:Nigel.Hutchison@s...]
> 
>  Further, the RDF Syntax spec requires that the
> properties namespace must not only be a label, but, in fact, must be a
> valid URL to an RDF Schema document (which defines what the property
> means, thus enabling dynamic understanding of a property).  That's my
> understanding.  Is it an incorrect understanding? 
> 
> Yes it is incorrect.
> 
> One of the odd things about RDF is though it is full of URIs, 
> RDF processing
> doesn't involve  URI dereferencing. URIs are used like keys.
> 

• Prev by Date: RE: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
• Next by Date: Re: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
• Previous by thread: Re: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
• Next by thread: RE: Can RDDL and RDF coexist?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread