- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:02:12 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 07:56 23/01/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: [...] That is: >if there aren't a bunch of people out >in the community who understand rdf:subject >the way I do, then the well-known-name >does me little good; I can just make >up my own namespace. Right. We have two possible meanings of rdf:subject and we have to choose which one rdf:subject means and leave the other one for a different vocabulary. Dan's statement implies that the reification support in RDF/XML is of little/no value to him, since he'd lose that switching to another vocabulary. Is that true of others supporting the 'object of rdf:subject is a URI' position? We have two different things to say and we could use two different vocabularies to say it. The things that distinguish the rdf:subject vocabulary is: o there is syntactic support for it in rdf/xml o there are existing implementations. Brian
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 05:03:05 UTC