- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:12:21 -0500
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, Gabe Beged-Dov <begeddov@jfinity.com>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Rather than continue to spin our wheels on this issue, can you give a
> specific example of a problem with my proposal i.e. a specific example with
> specific URIs where this creates a problem **
Yes -- you clearly solve the older problem of incompatibility with non-RDF
namespaces. However, you do not solve the newer problem recently raised that
the RDF syntax is not capable of representing the model. For example, it
cannot represent the statement:
<urn:p> <urn:p/q/> <urn:p:asas>
This is a bit of a problem, if we expect the RDF syntax to accurately
represent the model in its entirety.
> ** note: I can think of one particular issue but I think people need to
> think this through.
Could you share the issue with us so we can think it through?
--
[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2001 23:13:33 UTC