- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:50:48 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:40 PM 7/23/01 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>[...]
> > I think that in a model, or interpretation, there are just things that are
> > denoted.
>
>Ah - I think thats the first time I've got stung by the ambiguity of the
>term 'model'.
>
>I meant to suggest that the datastructure which represents RDF/XML, i.e.
>the data model, must represent the anonimity, otherwise it is not
>representing what was in the RDF/XML that was read.
That's the point I'm arguing: I don't think it's the anonymity that must
be represented, but the lack of possibility of other knowledge associated
with the name.
(Where I'm interpreting "representing" to mean something like "conveying
the same information about the domain of discourse")
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies
Strategic Research Content Security Group
<Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<http://www.baltimore.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 25 July 2001 09:57:01 UTC