[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Seairth Jacobs <seairth@seairth.com> wrote:
>
> From: "Hunsberger, Peter" <Peter.Hunsberger@stjude.org>
> >
> > The assumption that RNA cannot be used inside of some other
> vocabulary
> seems
> > perhaps dangerous to me: on person's metadata is another
> persons data.
> > Sooner or later someone will want to gobble up RNA and
> encapsulate it
> > in some strange way. Perhaps if only to present a live RNA
> example on
> > a Web page? Sure, in that case you can probably arrange for no
> > collisions, but maybe someone will find a reason to do some kind of
> > indirect/dynamic or recursive RNA (ack!) type thing and then what?
>
> And then nothing. The whole purpose of the restrictions is
> to dissallow such use. RNA does not have defined meaning
> when inside a document of another vocabulary. If you
> encountered such a thing, it might _look like_ RNA, but it
> would not _be_ RNA.
Well if you insist, but isn't that ignoring the fact that people may have
legitimate reasons for wanting to transport something that "looks like" RNA
across contexts? You can try and make it hard to do so, but you'll never
stop it from happening (and frankly I'm confused as to why you'd really want
to do this).
My gut feel is that your distinction between what "is RNA" and what "looks
like RNA" is completely artificial and thus fragile....
|
