- From: Peter Crowther <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 18:23:23 +0100
- To: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny@panlanka.net>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny@panlanka.net] > What's wrong with my machine saying 'I talk RDF(S)+DAML' and > refusing to > have anything to do with anything that doesn't understand > DAML It's rather like saying "I will never be mugged because I refuse to have anything to do with people who are muggers". Operate in the right environment and it is possible that you will be correct; but the muggers don't know that you refuse to mix with *them*. You cannot control what reads your RDF if you express something in RDF (just as with HTML or with XML). That reader may not be able to cope with your range of expression, but may still try to extract what meaning it can (just as with HTML or XML); and it may get entirely the wrong end of the stick (unlike HTML or XML). If RDF is designed (like any other Web protocol) to provide graceful degradation, this is a disaster: imagine if an XHTML browser's tag for "visible" caused all HTML4 and earlier browsers to *ignore* that content. > - if this > issue is *so* important, then everybody will include such a > constraint and you've got your common language. Hasn't happened yet with any language or system of which I'm aware; can't see it, myself, but would be fascinated to see a pointer to such a language or system. - Peter
Received on Monday, 9 April 2001 13:23:32 UTC