• To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: Re: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:00:10 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: danny666@v..., xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <102.1f2157b4.2b0ba770@a...> from "AndrewWatt2000@a..." at Nov 19, 2002 09:40:48 AM

AndrewWatt2000@a... scripsit:

> However, it doesn't seem to me that claims of universality which are a 
> million miles from practical reality strengthens the case for RDF.

RDF is called a universal assertion language in the same sense that (Turing-
complete) programming languages are called universal: anything expressible
can be expressed.

-- 
Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter,
Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme):  jcowan@r...
One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically   http://www.reutershealth.com
Challenges poets who / Don't have the time.     --robison who's at texas dot net

• References:
  • Re: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
    • From: AndrewWatt2000@a...

• Prev by Date: Re: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• Next by Date: Re: RDF as RDF, RDF as XML, RDF as metadata, RDF as object serialization ....
• Previous by thread: Re: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• Next by thread: Re: The perils of P18S (was Re: Why RDF is hard )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread