- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:13:50 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
On 18 Aug 2008, at 15:35, Dan Connolly wrote: > cwm used to equate a document with > a graph that it got from a document, but that turned out to be > a pretty limiting constraint, so we introduced the log:semantics > relationship between them. This is interesting, Dan. Can you share some details? What issues did you bump into when you treated HTTP documents and graphs as equivalent? (Not pushing any particular POV here, just curious about your experiences.) Cheers, Richard > > > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > >
Received on Monday, 18 August 2008 15:14:33 UTC