Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@m...> > 3) Let's discuss it rationally! Sure. > BTW, Paul: You cannot say that namespaces shouldn't be dereferenced: that > would make RDF useless overnight. Is it really possible to make RDF useless with just changing the meaning of namespace URI ( currently that URI has no meaning at all ;-) ? If yes - you should see how *huge* is the power of this URI. It can make RDF useless overnight. You said that - not me. ;-) It is not sane to allow toolmakers to use *such* a power in any way toolmaker will like and current W3C law allows such 'flexible' reading of the specs. Namespaces shouldn't be dereferenced until theere is a clear understanding *how* should they be dereferenced. There is no such understanding now, and at the same time the spec allows anybody to dereference namespaces in *any* way - and this dereferencing will be conformant == blessed by W3C. > But on the othr hand, you cannot say that > everything shoyuld be dereferenced: that would be absurd! I don't understand. I'm not saying that URIs should be URLs. I'm saying that namespcae URIs should never be dereferenced. Rgds.Paul. PS. So *you* think URI points to RDF ? Why do you think so ? By the way - I think it will be something like Schema. I suggest reading latest letters from Simon St.Laurent on "Begging the Question", but this is not the point. I think those who really like RDF can bind their documents to RDF with some other mechanisms. Right?
|
