[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) [mailto:clbullar@ingr.com]
>
> If it embeds the authority, there are two
> pieces of information there and how to
> reconcile which is in effect or both is
> still a processing issue. You are saying
> that there is no RDF System specification
> and that interoperability of such systems
> is left to the vendors to imagine.
I am saying as far as RDF is concerned, no meaning is embedded in a
URI ref.
> Once again, given the rules of the game,
> the biggest vendor wins. If the vendor
> chooses not to support it, the Semantic
> Web based on RDF processing collapses or
> remains a niche. Ok.
Well on this point any vendor who looks for meaning in the URI ref,
rather than the RDF graph, and makes decisions or entailments based
on that structure, is doing something other than RDF. That's not
exactly left unspecified and the one RDF construct that did
something like it is gone. If it's not crystal clear now, I'm sure
it can be made so before any of the new drafts go to
recommendation. That doesn't stop anyone doing their own thing, no
spec does, but you can do say things that make it clear that a
certain practice is not ok, via "must not".
There's a distributed systems best practice re naming that names
should be opaque, i.e. you don't go parsing into names to discover
something about who is named. That makes sense if you're using
something Java's VMID, I'm not sure how it'll work out for URIs as
they do have internal structure.
Bill de hÓra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
iQA/AwUBPP5OruaWiFwg2CH4EQLy/ACg5KnnH+36QkmaDUwJ85SFNsdcQyUAnA+l
BwoMIEElqU9qE2fqetmweD9d
=mmc1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
