- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:18:49 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > > 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. Why not? Transient things are resources too; you may or may not specify what their URI is (in the case of a mail messge, it would be mid:....); that doesn't mean they don't have one. > 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. I don't see how that follows. > >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"? Just think of everything as "on the Web". It's a matter of perspective. There aren't any constraints in the design of the Web that allow you to deduce a contradiction from saying "every document is on the Web". -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 09:18:55 UTC