[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Bill de hÓra
|
| [summary of previous thread snipped]
That's a fair summary.
| I echoed:
|
| The distinction doesn't exist in RDF.
|
| because RDF (as opposed to RDF apps and RDF syntax) is defined in
| the Model Theory; that is, when we speak of RDF, we're talking
| ultimately about the what's specified in the MT.
Not when I speak of RDF. The MT is just a specification, and alone it
doesn't do anything. A view of RDF that ignores the use of RDF is not
very interesting.
| As far as I can tell, you changed your mind mid thread. So how am I
| agreeing with you?
Go back to <m3fzx8qzmt.fsf@pc36.avidiaasen.online.no>, and read it
again, this time substituting "RDF as used in applications" for every
mention of "RDF" without qualifications like "core RDF" or "RDF
model". Also pay attention to Simon's complaint, which started the
whole thing.
I think that should clear things up.
--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
ISO SC34/WG3, OASIS GeoLang TC <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >
|
