- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:18:45 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "www-tag@w3.org WG" <www-tag@w3.org>
Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > > 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.) Equally curious: what are the pros and cons of defining log:semantics as a functional property? ie. can http://danbri.org/ have two different values for it? (I'm thinking about content and language negotiation, as well as natural changes over time). cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 12:20:19 UTC