- From: Noah Slater <nslater@bytesexual.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 00:36:38 +0000
- To: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
- Cc: uri@w3.org
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:02:38PM -0800, Erik Wilde wrote: > like i said, i am well aware of the fact that you could make everything on > the web opaque and just use rdf for semantics. i just don't believe that's > a good way to go. Actually, you said: > i am still waiting for a single example from the "everything is > http" followers where that approach was applied sucessfully. The whole RDF world is built on this approach. > if you can express semantics in a simpler way, you should do it. Inventing a URI scheme every time you need something new is not what I would describe as a "simple" approach. At least, not for the standards bodies and operating system/application developers who have to continuely manage an ever growing collection of conflicting and incompatible URI schemes. Also, saying "std:in" carries absolutely no semantics by it's self. Sure, you could publish a HTML profile somewhere, but you're missing out on being able to advertise this profile's location using the name it's self. -- Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/> "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 00:36:42 UTC