[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
>
> Umm... not exactly. You can choose to
> process it as a sign (no need to dereference)
> or to process it as a symbol because of the
> record of authority. Yes, that is a good
> thing because it is your choice. In other
> words, the choice to exercise a processing
> asset is local. You choose what "correct
> processing" means and you get to make that
> choice once or every time you use that process.
That's to misunderstand RDF (or give it too much credit, take your
pick). URIs are handy because we can create new unique ones with
minimal centralization and fuss. In RDF they're just globals, are
opaque, and in that respect there is no choice. Provenance is an
important use case for RDF.
Dereferencing URI refs for more information is outside the scope of
RDF. There isn't an 'official' processing model for RDF, its
standardization to date has been careful to avoid talking about
processing, beyond what entailments can be made via the model
theory and the minimal amount of things you say or imply when
specifying serialization syntaxes like the XML.
Bill de hÓra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
iQA/AwUBPP5ACeaWiFwg2CH4EQKe8QCfV7b5vHJbIQmvqh97DrPSyjxqI7kAoOId
JlHttcz4d3im/fm1uvQ1Az0l
=x7/v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
