- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 13:03:59 -0400
- To: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, "'Bill de hOra'" <dehora@eircom.net>, "'Tim Berners-Lee'" <timbl@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > > I believe that we have come to some kind > of consensus here that strongly suggests > why the use of technologies such as RDDL > and RDF have value: to annotate and > correlate the interpretations. As has > been stated, the use of the URI to point > to a separate interpretive document is > not mandated, but very useful. The > role of the URI in the XML namespace as > a syntactical device to disambiguate names > is fixed, not arguable. The use of it > to cite an interpretive document is not > fixed, but it is wise. To know what > some authority asserts it means, we have > to ask the cat. > We can say (as a start -- could use some wordsmithing perhaps): "The meaning of a URI(ref) as intended by its authority is defined by the set of assertions obtained when the URI is referenced. When the media type of such a representation is: application/rdf+xml, then the meaning of the represented URI is given by the graph as per the RDF model theory." Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 13:10:36 UTC