W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Re: #rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:07:18 +0100
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010615120236.03850a10@joy.songbird.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 02:29 AM 6/15/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > RDF absolutely has to make sense even outside the context of
> > an enclosing document which can be given a uri. so ...
>
>So... what? That doesn't make any sense to me.
>
>An RDF document is an XML document. Each XML document
>has a base URI (cf the infoset spec).

If this is  true, then it is not possible to transfer RDF data in transient 
protocol elements.

Which means that (say) the CC/PP spec, formulated *by design* as a *format* 
only for client capability data, cannot be regarded as a valid RDF application.

>If you copy the contents from one
>place in the web to another, you get a different XML
>document, and hence a difference RDF document; if
>it uses relative URI references, the resulting triples
>may be different.
>
>This is by design.

OK.

But what is the status of information that is not "on the Web"?

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research              Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>    <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
                                 <http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 07:24:39 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:09 EDT