• From: Stefan Haustein <haustein@k...>
• To: james.anderson@m...
• Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:49:10 +0100

james anderson wrote:
> 
> while it is correct, that, in oop, the scope and extent of property
> bindings relate to object boundaries and relations, the identity of the
> name is not necessarily qualified by the class. there are other oop
> forms for which the expressiveness of rdf is necessary. java is not the
> only possibility.

You are probably talking about all the OOP forms where also 
the type / element distinction in XML Schema makes sense. :-)

> the "work-around" of "additional" namespaces is, well, the nature of the
> namespaces which java, in particular, prescribes. if rdf were to enforce
> these restrictions itself, then other oop forms wouldn't be serializable
> at all.

Can you give a relevant example of this kind of OOP? 

Best regards

Stefan 

-- 
Stefan Haustein
University of Dortmund
Computer Science VIII
www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The RDF model *is* part of the problem
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@m...>

• References:
  • Re: The RDF model *is* part of the problem
    • From: Vilya Harvey <vilya@n...>
  • Re: The RDF model *is* part of the problem
    • From: Stefan Haustein <haustein@k...>
  • Re: The RDF model *is* part of the problem
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The RDF model *is* part of the problem
• Next by Date: Re: XPath -> SQL
• Previous by thread: Re: The RDF model *is* part of the problem
• Next by thread: Re: The RDF model *is* part of the problem
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread