[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:37:12PM +0200, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> and I have never ever had any problems with that decision. I believe
> that a technology itself gets to define what their 'elements' are and
> not whoever uses the technology.
>
> A nice example of this is XTM (Topic Maps applied to XML/Web) which
> implicitly makes the assumption that URIs allways identify Documents
> (aka 'addressable subjects') and NEVER!! abstract concepts (aka
> 'non-addressable subjects'). How can a technology (Topic Maps) that
> *uses* terms and infrastructure of another technology re-define the
> terms? Makes no sense to me.
It makes no sense because it isn't true. It explicitly *DOES* use URIs
in precisely these two ways. See for example
http://www.topicmaps.org/xtm/1.0/#def-subject-indicator
Now from what I've read about RDF it seems that too uses URIs in these
different ways, but fails to make the distinction, so you can never be
sure whether a statement talks about a document or about the subject of
the document.
--
Bart.
|
