- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 21:03:55 +0100
- To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 11:35 AM 5/29/02 -0500, patrick hayes wrote: >>That seems like saying that XHTML documents are not XML documents... >>or that TCP packets aren't IP packets. They clearly are. > >No, its not like that. Its like saying that what makes a TCP packet >correct TCP can't be determined without knowing TCP; it goes beyond the IP >spec. Here's maybe an analogy to work with... The argument that DAML+OIL is RDF is similar to an argument that TCP is IP, because all of TCP can be (and is) carried in IP packets. But TCP is clearly more that IP. (I find this debate a bit frustrating, because I think it's pretty clear that RDF++ (for some '++') is not RDF, but at the same time I think there is real utility in having a subset of RDF++ being true RDF. Hmmm: C and C++, there's another analogy.) #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 16:05:25 UTC