Re: bNodes again (Re: Container semantics (was Re: bNodes wanted)) from Peter F. Patel-Schneider on 2002-05-28 (www-rdf-interest@w3.org from May 2002)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 06:31:16 -0400
To: sandro@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020528063116K.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: bNodes again (Re: Container semantics (was Re: bNodes wanted)) 
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:52:25 -0400

> > I happen to think that RDF does have some utility by itself.
> 
> You think one party can communicate useful information to another when
> the only terms of which they share an understanding are those given in
> RDF 1.0?  Hmmm.  You can communicate a variety of odd little facts, I
> guess, but I can't imagine anything very useful without additional
> shared terms.   Am I missing something?
> 
>     -- sandro

I'm not saying that additional shared understanding is not needed.  All I'm
saying is that RDF has some utility by itself.

After all, somehow some people think that XML is adequate for lots of
communication.  Are they wrong?

peter

Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2002 06:40:17 UTC