Re: RDF

Hi Mark!

I'm not entirely sure I've understood your comment (below), but if I did . . .

On Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:09:17 -0500 Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0336.html :
>On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 11:32:26PM -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> > This (fragid hiding) is a form of end to end property.
> > The significance of the the mime message is known only
> > to sender/publisher and to receiver/browser.
> > It is only in that context that the fragment ID makes sense.
>
>I understand what you're getting at, but I don't believe this is
>particularly valuable.  You argue that "RDF uses this hook to introduce
>identifiers for arbitrary concepts", yet Roy and I and others are
>saying that you can already do that without this hook.

I believe some kind of syntactic convention is necessary, in order to 
simultaneously (a) distinguish between the car and the picture of the car; 
and (b) achieve the "View Source" effect.  I've explained my reasoning more 
fully in
http://www.w3.org/2002/11/dbooth-names/dbooth-names_clean.htm#EnablingViewSource



-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

Received on Monday, 27 January 2003 01:06:08 UTC