- From: Stephen Cranefield <SCranefield@infoscience.otago.ac.nz>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:08:55 +1200
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Sean Palmer wrote: > > 1) The name assigned to a concept within a schema (which is > > unique) > > 2) A location of the definition of the concept > > Where 2) is, of course, just a variant of 1). This is far from obvious to me. In fact, I believe that a name and a definition are fundamentally different and that this convention is well established in logic and mathematics. What happens if the schema is replicated on two different servers (and can therefore be accessed via two URLs) - do the concepts defined in the schema now have two names? Anyway, I'm not trying to convince people to change existing usage, but as I am personally uncomfortable with it I would like to understand the implications of and infrastructure necessary to use alternative forms of naming for schemas and their defined concepts. - Stephen
Received on Monday, 13 August 2001 18:07:37 UTC