[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XHTML 2.0: the one bright light?? (Was: linking, 80/20)
* Bill de hÓra | | [summary of previous thread snipped] That's a fair summary. | I echoed: | | The distinction doesn't exist in RDF. | | because RDF (as opposed to RDF apps and RDF syntax) is defined in | the Model Theory; that is, when we speak of RDF, we're talking | ultimately about the what's specified in the MT. Not when I speak of RDF. The MT is just a specification, and alone it doesn't do anything. A view of RDF that ignores the use of RDF is not very interesting. | As far as I can tell, you changed your mind mid thread. So how am I | agreeing with you? Go back to <m3fzx8qzmt.fsf@p...>, and read it again, this time substituting "RDF as used in applications" for every mention of "RDF" without qualifications like "core RDF" or "RDF model". Also pay attention to Simon's complaint, which started the whole thing. I think that should clear things up. -- Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net > ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
|
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
|