- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 16:21:46 +0100
- To: "'Michael Mealling'" <michael@neonym.net>
- Cc: "'Jonathan Borden'" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, "'Tim Bray'" <tbray@textuality.com>, "'Norman Walsh'" <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, <www-tag@w3.org>
> From: Michael Mealling [mailto:michael@neonym.net] > > And, depending on what RDF expects the definition of > 'resource' to be, using another process to do that work may > have been a mistake... Interpretations are standard stuff in a model theory. Perhaps 'process' was a poor choice of word. RDF uses 'mapping'; the one that maps URIs to resources (or labels to the world) is called 'IS'. > What is RDFs definition of a 'resource'? Not usefully different to HTTP's afaict; a resource is whatever a URI names. Nonetheless if RDF held an 1-1 mappings as an axiomatic, the MT wouldn't require the IS mapping. I suppose one could argue that IS is a redundant artefact from model theoretic semantics in the large, or the Web architecture provides IS 'for free' due to authoritative naming; neither seems an entirely satisfactory way to show the seamntic and the actual Web tee up axiomatically. Bill de hÓra -- Propylon www.propylon.com
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 11:23:10 UTC