[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Stefan Haustein <haustein@kimo.cs.uni-dortmund.de>
- To: james.anderson@mecomnet.de
- 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@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
