W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2006

RE: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:43:23 -0400
To: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Reto Bachmann-Gmür'" <reto@gmuer.ch>, <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>, "'Semantic Web'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601c6b0f4$2375a860$0e241780@bioxiao>


> An RSS 1.0 feed is a legitimate use of RDF over HTTP, yes? On 
> Thursday a given feed might contain statements about 
> resources item1, item2, item3. Friday it might contain 
> statements about item3, item4, item5.
> But they are both representations of the same resource. The 
> fact that the component parts of their representation varies 
> is irrelevant.
> In the same fashion, graphs A, B and C can legitimately be 
> representations of a *single* resource, even if C is the 
> union of the statements in A and B.
> > It is a misguided argument to say: ... at a semantic level.

I don't know what to say, what has the content dynamics to do with the
content unity? 

It seems to me that you just cannot help but peeking into the package before
it is being transported. And I am just trying to make you wait till it gets
to your home.  Let's leave it to that, O.K?

Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 20:45:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:57 UTC