[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Bart Schuller wrote:
> 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.
According to its Model Theory, RDF only 'uses' URIs in one way, as names
denoting resources. There's no distinction to be had.
cheers
Bill
|
