- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:12:30 -0800
- To: Chris Catton <chris.catton@btopenworld.com>
- CC: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Chris Catton wrote: >I may be losing the plot now, but I still think this is a circular argument. >Summarising what's gone so far ... > ><http://example.org/somepage#MotorVehicle> from an rdf document refers to an >rdf resource. > Actually I dont think there are resources distinguished from "rdf resources", rather there are resources and RDF can talk about them. >So if I want to talk about the text on a web page I must define the URI: > > http://example.org/somepage#MotorVehicle > >to mean the HTML fragment ... > > >But I can't do this, because when I try and define it, I automatically refer >to the resource and not the fragment > Well if you define it as an HTML fragment, then the resource *is* the fragment. If you define it as a class of motor vehicles, then that is the resource. See the mentograph [1]. [1] http://robustai.net/mentography/rdf_fragments.jpg Of coure you can't do both things at the same time from the same server. I believe there must be only one http://foo document with media type application/rdf+xml at any given time ... right? I've always though that mentography would be useful to clarify RDF ... I think this is an good example. More about mentography at [2] http://robustai.net/mentography/mentography.html Seth Russell http://radio.weblogs.com/0113759/
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 13:13:06 UTC