[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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.
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.
Being silent about such things (is outside
the scope of RDF) is proving as it did in XML
Namespaces to be a naive approach to
specifications. I understand what you
are saying, but as we learned in SGML,
it just postpones work to be done
elsewhere and engenders non interoperable
systems.
Data is portable. Systems interoperate.
len
From: Bill de hOra [mailto:dehora@eircom.net]
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.
|
