- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:57:20 -0500
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
On Friday, August 24, 2001, at 03:02 AM, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > Here you're arguing my point precisely. If one source says... OK, now I think I grasp what you're arguing. All you have to do is understand that: RDF Does Not Deal With QNames and everything's OK. > And those two sources are syndicated at run-time, where both creators > of the knowledge were unaware of the other's use of QNames, and > therefore > could not forsee any potential problem of collision, we end up with the > following ambiguous RDF triples: The creators should have been thinking of URIs for their terms, not QNames. Here's another maxim: RDF Has No Concept Of Namespace which solves a lot. Predicates are URIs alone, their "namespace" is nowhere to be found. Now I will delete the rest of this thread from my mailbox, -- "Aaron Swartz" | The Semantic Web <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://logicerror.com/semanticWeb-long> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | i'm working to make it happen
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2001 10:57:23 UTC