- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 14:30:59 -0800
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 10:15 PM 21/01/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >You may be interested in this > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0188.html > >which also suggests that refining the definitions of and relationships between resources, URI's, URI refs and namespaces is a task for the TAG. Your draft is to the point but phrased in an awfully abstract way. I think that it's easier for most people (for me certainly) to talk over abstract issues when there are concrete examples attached. In this case, I think Jonathan's concern about the RDF address-generation-by-concatenation model highlights a few of these issues, and any policy which addresses these issues ought to imply a resolution to that dispute as well. So if you wanted to send that to the TAG, I'd add a note highlighting this issue as a concrete example. BTW, at the moment I share Jonathan's concern over the concatenation model of URI generation and don't think you ought to rush to close this issue. Having said that, I'm a bit out of date with the recent debate. But having said that, if Jonathan's right that RDF and Schema are out of sync on this, that's a REAL architectural red flag. -Tim
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 17:31:20 UTC