- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 07:38:03 -0400
- To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RIF <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
> Again we have the same mild disagreement as we did over predicates :-) right, it is the same issue :-) > To me local/global scope is a different issue from uniqueness of names. > I start from the position that this is a web (interchange) language and > everything should be identified by a URI unless there is a good reason > not to. Since every RIF document will have an (implicit or explicit) > base URI then regarding "local" module names as relative URIs seems > reasonable to me. Whereas having modules nameable by both strings and > URIs seems like an unnecessary complication. I am coming from a different end to this. A local KB may be organized in a modular way with one module (scope) known globally and other modules (scopes) playing auxiliary roles. It is hard for me to understand why those other modules need to have IRIs as their names. > That small point aside it's good we agree that something along these > lines would be valuable. Good! --michael > Dave > -- > Hewlett-Packard Limited > Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN > Registered No: 690597 England > >
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 11:38:20 UTC