- From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:27:12 +0100
- To: Oskar Welzl <lists@welzl.info>
- CC: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <rbg@talis.com>, "Lynn, James (HP Software)" <james.lynn@hp.com>
Oskar Welzl wrote: > Thats how I try to think of it; it makes things relatively unambiguous, > though sometimes more complicated (see my initial examples), but its > obvious that quite a lot of people who author RDF out there have quite a > lot of different approaches. Mixing those seems to be a challenge... > Right, that is the point - to make things unambiguous. So, for your original question. It is not a matter of "can or cannot" but "should or should not". A machine couldn't careless if there is something that is both a html page and a person . A machine can not verify the reality. In machine's logic, there can be as long such a creature because nothing says it can't. So, the choice is your intension. If you want others to understand your resource unambiguously, you should describe them in the best way possible to avoid confusion. So, sure, you can use "http://www.flikr.com" to refer both the community/service and web page as long as you are willing to take that some machine agent may tell you that the service/community has a colored background and the web page has some female or male members. That's my two cents, Xiaoshu
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2007 11:28:21 UTC