I would like to request a little discipline on this list. Please note that this list is for communicating with the WG. It is not a general discussion list. If you are replying to a post from a non-WG member, please consider posting it www-rff-interest, and including participants in the discussion on the to or cc list. Brian At 10:12 26/11/2002 -0800, Seth Russell wrote: >Chris Catton wrote: > >>I may be losing the plot now, but I still think this is a circular argument. >>Summarising what's gone so far ... >> >><http://example.org/somepage#MotorVehicle> from an rdf document refers to an >>rdf resource. >Actually I dont think there are resources distinguished from "rdf >resources", rather there are resources and RDF can talk about them. > >>So if I want to talk about the text on a web page I must define the URI: >> >> http://example.org/somepage#MotorVehicle >> >>to mean the HTML fragment ... >> >> >>But I can't do this, because when I try and define it, I automatically refer >>to the resource and not the fragment >Well if you define it as an HTML fragment, then the resource *is* the >fragment. If you define it as a class of motor vehicles, then that is the >resource. See the mentograph [1]. > >[1] http://robustai.net/mentography/rdf_fragments.jpg > >Of coure you can't do both things at the same time from the same server. I >believe there must be only one http://foo document with media type >application/rdf+xml at any given time ... right? > >I've always though that mentography would be useful to clarify RDF ... I >think this is an good example. >More about mentography at >[2] http://robustai.net/mentography/mentography.html > >Seth Russell >http://radio.weblogs.com/0113759/Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 03:18:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 18:22:15 GMT
