- From: Bill dehOra <Wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:12:38 +0100
- To: "'McBride, Brian'" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@Dial.pipex.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, CC/PP WG list <w3c-ccpp-wg@w3.org>
: <ccppX:assurance>Brian Says This</ccppX:assurance> : <ccppX:colours>2</ccppX:colours> : : <ccppX:assurance>Graham Says This</ccppX:assurance> : <ccppX:colours>3</ccppX:colours> : :You'd need to figure out which to believe, but that seems doable. : :And this is just representation. You still have to figure whether :to believe the representation. It would be interesting to know :how you are proposing to do that. Well, the thing is, they are not neccessarily in conflict at all. So, in computer A, a device that has 2 colors might also have 3 colors (no conflict). But in computer B, this device can have only one color value (conflict). I appreciate this is verging off-topic wrt to the thread, but I think it's important to point out that we don't get "semantics for free" with RDF interchange languages. In this case, being able to say anything about anything isn't exactly a win. -Bill
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2000 08:10:40 UTC