- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 16:46:44 +0000
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:46 PM 12/6/01 -0600, Aaron Swartz wrote:
>I've provided extensive quotes in this message to make my point. I hope it's
>helpful to other working group members.
Indeed...
I think there *is* an issue here, but I can't be sure exactly what/where it
is. I do think it's a point of co ntinuing confusion, if not outright
disagreement. I've yet to decide whether or not it will prove to be
important in any practical sense, but the lack of clarity isn't helpful.
At the RDFIG F2F at the W3C plenary last year, I understood TimBL to agree
that the set of "resources" referenced by RDF resource identifiers was not
identical to the set of "resources" that are identifiable for possible web
retrieval. Maybe the correspondence between "web identifier URIs" and
"RDF identifier URIs" is just a some-times convenient convention, no more?
Hmmm... what is/are the rdf:type(s) of the web resource accessed using
<http://www.w3.org/>?
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2001 13:06:15 UTC