Re: Sandro's proposal

I'm not convinced... I think this discussion has moved from what is 
technically essential in the RDF core to what is desirable practice.  I am 
prepared to accept that there are desirable practices here, but see that as 
a separate discussion.

#g
--

At 02:17 PM 1/27/03 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> > Graham Klyne wrote in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0298.html :
> > >My point of divergence with [Sandro's] proposal is the suggestion it
> > >should be part of the RDF core, because I don't see the necessity for it
> > >to be there.
> >
> > For an explanation of why it needs to be in the language, see
> > 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/11/dbooth-names/dbooth-names_clean.htm#EnablingViewSou
> > rce
> >
> > Of course, what you consider to be "the language" is a matter of
> > choice.  But if it isn't in RDF Core, then it *must* be in something else
> > that is effectively acting as "the language" that different writers are 
> using
>
>[ reads David's "Enabling the View Source Effect" ... ]
>
>Yes, exactly.
>
>Without that, we're left with only the tedious and error prone
>rdfs:isDefinedBy and owl:imports.  If that's all you have, there's
>absolutely no reason to use http URIs.  This is why I proposed tag
>URIs, to make this clear.  In fact, tag URIs suck -- because you can't
>click on them.
>
>    -- sandro

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 17:49:00 UTC