- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:45:03 +0200
- To: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > > I myself prefer the current wording. The question of consistency > > of interpretation between the SW and Web is anything but clear, > > so I don't find it justified or helpful (or wise) for the WG > > to expect something which is arguably uncertain and unclear. > > Then perhaps you should ask to re-open issue rdfms-assertion; the WG > has decided that... > > "A combination of social (e.g. legal) and technical > machinery (protocols, file formats, publication frameworks) provide > the contexts that fix the intended meanings of the vocabulary of > some piece of RDF, and which distinguish assertions from other > uses (e.g. citations, denals or illustrations)." > -- RDF concepts draft of 7Aug > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/0003.html > cited from 23 Aug minutes, referenced from > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion > Well, I don't really see how the above quote has anything concrete to say about consistency of interpretation of URIs between RDF and HTTP/REST. But it's late... Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 13:46:30 UTC