W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: checked RDF semantics for XSD stuff, couldn't grok namespaceentailment

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:45:03 +0200
Message-ID: <00b601c2a5fc$6988a660$dc80720a@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

> > I myself prefer the current wording. The question of consistency
> > of interpretation between the SW and Web is anything but clear,
> > so I don't find it justified or helpful (or wise) for the WG
> > to expect something which is arguably uncertain and unclear.
> Then perhaps you should ask to re-open issue rdfms-assertion; the WG
> has decided that...
> "A combination of social (e.g. legal) and technical
> machinery (protocols, file formats, publication frameworks) provide
> the contexts that fix the intended meanings of the vocabulary of
> some piece of RDF, and which distinguish assertions from other
> uses (e.g. citations, denals or illustrations)."
>  -- RDF concepts draft of 7Aug
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/0003.html
>  cited from 23 Aug minutes, referenced from
>  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion

Well, I don't really see how the above quote has anything
concrete to say about consistency of interpretation of URIs
between RDF and HTTP/REST.

But it's late...

Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 13:46:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:03 UTC