xml-dev - Re: [xml-dev] Why RDF is hard

Re: [xml-dev] Why RDF is hard

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Why RDF is hard
From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@propylon.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:15:42 +0000
Cc: dareo@microsoft.com, simonstl@simonstl.com, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Organization: Propylon
References: <AOEKLHGMHIHGNIBEDMNMOEFHDFAA.shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Reply-to: bill.dehora@propylon.com
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

> Dare Obasanjo:
>
> issue some direction on namespace documents and intended to recommend
> RDDL/RDF. This may not literally be "forcing" authorities that own XML
> namespaces to use RDF but it is >a strong push and some would at least call
> it coercion.

For an alternate take on GETting against a namespace, see Patrick 
Sticker's recent post to the TAG:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0118.html>

Bill de hÓra

References:
- RE: [xml-dev] Why RDF is hard
  - From: "Shelley Powers" <shelleyp@burningbird.net>

Prev by Date: Schema for imprecise times
Next by Date: Re: [xml-dev] ANN: Open XPath NG mailing list
Previous by thread: RE: [xml-dev] Why RDF is hard
Next by thread: RE: [xml-dev] Universal Applications, Universal Data
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread