- From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:00:20 -0800
- To: rdfig <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Uche Ogbuji wrote: >I agree that proper context/scopes would be little work to add to core >RDF, so I have always wondered: why the complete avoidance of the issue >in the specs? Me too. >This is a matter that almost every RDF implementor has had to >rediscover and/or reinvent. I would think a "standard" in >development should take note of this fact. I think if we just had a way to refer to a graph by URI in standard RDF, then different developers could implement context/scope in different ways internal to their application, but the data would still be interoperable. Can you think of anything that you would want to say in RDF about a scope or context (regardless of what you think those things are) that could not be said by a RDF triple if you could put the URI of the scope or context as a subject or object of a predicate ? Seth Russell
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 16:00:53 UTC