Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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. >
|
