W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Documents, Cars, Hills, and Valleys

From: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:46:41 -0700
Message-ID: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C104D1C462@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
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

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:35 UTC