- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:07:18 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 02:29 AM 6/15/01 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote: > > RDF absolutely has to make sense even outside the context of > > an enclosing document which can be given a uri. so ... > >So... what? That doesn't make any sense to me. > >An RDF document is an XML document. Each XML document >has a base URI (cf the infoset spec). If this is true, then it is not possible to transfer RDF data in transient protocol elements. Which means that (say) the CC/PP spec, formulated *by design* as a *format* only for client capability data, cannot be regarded as a valid RDF application. >If you copy the contents from one >place in the web to another, you get a different XML >document, and hence a difference RDF document; if >it uses relative URI references, the resulting triples >may be different. > >This is by design. OK. But what is the status of information that is not "on the Web"? #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne Baltimore Technologies Strategic Research Content Security Group <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com> <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <http://www.baltimore.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 07:24:39 UTC