- From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:46:41 -0700
- To: <msabin@interx.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> In some situations it makes sense to think of representation as > transitive (ie. if the URI represents a document which in turn > represents todays news, then the URI represents todays news), in which No it doesn't make sense. Please give me one useful example where this is useful and solves consumer needs and couldn't be better done with tdb. > an abstract namespace or nothing at all. If they do represent an > abstract namespace, then why would putting a retrievable document at > the end of them defeat their original non-retrievable reference? No, what "non-retrievable reference" use case did a namespace URL ever have? I have actually never seen anyone making assertions about a namespace, and if they did, I would see no reason why they wouldn't just use tdb with the namespace URL.
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 14:47:15 UTC