- From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:05:27 -0800
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Paul Prescod wrote: > > I'm unconvinced that this really buys anything, but it's probably > > cheap to assert that this RDDL applies to namespace X; obviously you > > have to be able to claim to belong to more than one namespace. > > Why? The notion that you limit a RDDL to apply to one and only one namespace seems like a totally artificial limitation that buys nothing and eliminates interesting possibilities. > > ... > > Well, if you think of a namespace as a resource then a RDDL is a > > representation of that resource, so that establishes one end of the > > relationship. > > Not in a way that will be accessible to RDF processors. They have no > notion of the relationship between resource and representation, AFAIK. Aahhh... the RDF tax strikes again. I want to do something that is obvious and straightforward and implicit in the resource/representation relationship, and using RDF is going to cost me oceans of arcane totally human-opaque syntax. > > ... At no point has RDDL ever built in syntax to assert the > > relationship of these resources to the namespace, since any reasonable > > person will point out that this can be inferred from its being in the > > representation of the namespace. > > I'm not worried about people, I'm worried about machines. A machine is entirely capable of detecting the condition that some assertions are contained in the representation of a resource and inferring the fact that the assertions are related to the resource. It should not be necessary to duplicate the assertion of this machine-detectable relationship. -Tim
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 21:05:27 UTC