Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <email@example.com>
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:11:27 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean B. Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 3) Let's discuss it rationally!
> 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.
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?