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

Re: many-to-many

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: many-to-many
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 13:47:08 -0800
• In-reply-to: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE5A@h...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACE5A@h...>

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.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• 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