Re: Sandro's proposal

> Graham Klyne wrote in 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0298.html :
> >My point of divergence with [Sandro's] proposal is the suggestion it 
> >should be part of the RDF core, because I don't see the necessity for it 
> >to be there.
> 
> For an explanation of why it needs to be in the language, see
> http://www.w3.org/2002/11/dbooth-names/dbooth-names_clean.htm#EnablingViewSou
> rce
> 
> Of course, what you consider to be "the language" is a matter of 
> choice.  But if it isn't in RDF Core, then it *must* be in something else 
> that is effectively acting as "the language" that different writers are using

[ reads David's "Enabling the View Source Effect" ... ]

Yes, exactly.  

Without that, we're left with only the tedious and error prone
rdfs:isDefinedBy and owl:imports.  If that's all you have, there's
absolutely no reason to use http URIs.  This is why I proposed tag
URIs, to make this clear.  In fact, tag URIs suck -- because you can't
click on them.

   -- sandro