- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:06:08 +0100
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: jborden@mediaone.net, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com, connolly@w3.org
- Message-Id: <OF74A0784F.13368F19-ONC1256B53.003C619D@bayer-ag.com>
[some further thoughts...] > > <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="..."> > > <rdf:RDF rdf:ID="#nest"> > > ... > > </rdf:RDF> > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="#nest"> > > ... > > </rdf:Description> > > </rdf:RDF> > > that seems to be it well... given the monotonicity requirement the getting of a fragment versus the getting of the whole document is not an issue so I wouldn't try to get a fragment of a document. Either we refer to the whole document and speech act accordingly or cut&paste a copy of a fragment of it in our own theory (this is basically by-reference versus by-value following the law of "conservation of misery"). -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 06:07:34 UTC