- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 09:51:21 +0000
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 14:30 21/01/2002 -0800, Tim Bray wrote: >At 10:15 PM 21/01/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: > > >You may be interested in this > > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0188.html > > > >which also suggests that refining the definitions of and relationships > between resources, URI's, URI refs and namespaces is a task for the TAG. > >Your draft is to the point but phrased in an awfully abstract >way. I think that it's easier for most people (for me certainly) >to talk over abstract issues when there are concrete examples >attached. In this case, I think Jonathan's concern about the >RDF address-generation-by-concatenation model highlights a >few of these issues, and any policy which addresses these >issues ought to imply a resolution to that dispute as well. So >if you wanted to send that to the TAG, I'd add a note highlighting >this issue as a concrete example. Good advice, will do. >BTW, at the moment I share Jonathan's concern over the >concatenation model of URI generation and don't think >you ought to rush to close this issue. Having said that, >I'm a bit out of date with the recent debate. But having >said that, if Jonathan's right that RDF and Schema are >out of sync on this, that's a REAL architectural red flag. Does schema have URI's for all its types? >-Tim
Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 04:52:16 UTC