RE: [xml-dev] many-to-many

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Thanks Joe.  That makes a heckuva lot more 
sense to me.  Gotta love the math.

I then have to wonder why the fuss?   

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@flightlab.com]

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>
> But that doesn't fix the problem.  As I said before,
> the issue comes up in the context of RDF attempting
> to use URIs for one to one mappings.  It would seem
> that if they are using a name which must map, they
> must be responsible for specifying the selector
> mechanism which as you point out on the Web, is
> the protocol technology (eg, HTTP).  What does
> RDF do at that stage of identifying?


RDF -- the new version of 12 Nov 2002, not the original --
handles URIs fairly sensibly, I think.

In the new RDF model, URIRefs are atomic, logical constants;
no assumptions are made about the nature of resources [*].
An RDF graph is just a graph; it has no intrinsic meaning
beyond the graph structure.  URIs label nodes and edges,
nothing more.  

Any additional meaning ascribed to the graph comes from an 
"X-interpretation," for various values of X, and, for the
most part, "X-interpretations" are Outside the Scope of
This Document.



[*] This is somewhat true of the original M&S Rec as well,
    but reading the original I get this persistent, nagging
    feeling that an RDF triple *must* be saying *something*
    about *something*.  I don't get that feeling reading
    the new version.  Less metaphysics, more math; a big
    improvement.