On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 07:36, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Kal Ahmed
> |
> | I agree. However, allowing multiple subject locators doesn't address
> | this issue at all - it just creates more confusion by allowing a
> | topic to have subject locators that address multiple abstractions
> | (and possibly even multiple data items). IMO, the old heuristic of
> | zero or one subject locator per subject is a lot easier to
> | understand, communicate and design around.
>
> Now I'm confused. As far as I recall, you agreed with the subject
> locator decision made in the ISO meeting. Does this mean that you've
> changed your mind, or that I'm somehow mistaken?
>
You are mistaken. I was in a minority and didn't want to hold up the
meeting. I still don't like the decision.
> | I'm intrigued. As I understand it, in RDF you can use URIs as the
> | equivalent of TM's subject locators as they are currently defined
> | (as in the world famous "http://.... author 'Ora Lassila'".
>
> You can do this, but you can also use URIs the way we use subject
> identifiers. RDF doesn't define what the semantics of the reference
> are.
Right, so you do it by using them in a context defined by a predicate.
Cheers,
Kal
--
Kal Ahmed <kal-5x+ggncFKvmB+jHODAdFcQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
techquila
|
