- From: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:57:53 +0000
- To: www-tag@w3.org
Graham Klyne wrote, > 1. While it's easy to get into lengthy metaphysical arguments about > what URIs may denote, the formal semantics of RDF simply doesn't > care. It recognizes that, in general, there are many (infinite, > even) interpretations that can satisfy an RDF graph. Usually, only > one of those interpretations is intended, but that doesn't matter to > the formal aspects of RDF, which provide some ground rules for saying > what can be validly inferred from a given RDF graph. So no problem > on that score. I don't think there any problem with RDF here. Nevertheless, this view is inconsistent with RFC 2396. According to the latter there is exactly one denotation of a URI, an abstract Resource. That's the root of Sandro's problem. Cheers, Miles
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 06:58:24 UTC