- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 16:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- cc: <msabin@interx.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Joshua Allen wrote: > > 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. People do this all the time, writing things like... <rdfs:Property rdf:about="http://example.com/my-new-property-uri"> <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title"/> </rdfs:Property> ...without needing to dereference the dc:title URIref. It is very useful to be able to dereference it, to get more (authoritative) information about the property, but it can also be used in contexts where deref isn't needed. Dan
Received on Wednesday, 10 April 2002 16:18:12 UTC