[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@ingr.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 5:09 PM
> To: 'Hutchison, Nigel'; 'Roger L. Costello'
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] 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@softwareag.com]
>
> 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.
>
|
