Re: [proposal to close] pfps-22,pfps-23: "reserved names in abstract syntax"

>From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: [proposal to close] pfps-22,pfps-23: "reserved names in 
>abstract syntax"
>Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 12:49:42 +0100
>
>> On 2003年8月07日 07:36:28 -0400 (EDT)
>> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Vocabulary 1:
>> >
>> >	rdf:first rdf:rest
>> >
>> > Vocabulary 2:
>> >
>> >	rdf:List rdf:nil
>> >
>> > What namespaces names can be used to identify these vocabularies?
>>
>> Identifying other sets of terms or comparing sets of terms, is not
>> something I'm dealing with or need to. Try OWL :)
>>
>> The RDF Vocabulary is a particular set of terms (infinite since it has
>> rdf:_n), neither of which is Vocabulary 1 or 2 above. So it isn't the
>> RDF namespace name.
>>
>> But I'm telling you stuff you already know. Please explain the problem.
>>
>> Dave
>
>The problem is that vocabularies exist independently of namespace names.
OK
>Saying that a namespace name identifies a vocabulary, even the RDF and RDFS
>vocabularies, is incorrect.
Why? And why does this follow from the previous sentence? Not ALL 
vocabularies can be so identified, but that is not what is being said 
here. I see nothing wrong with saying that the namespace name 'rdf' 
identifies the rdfV vocabulary, for example.
> The RDF vocabulary is not identified by a
>namespace name or even by a namspace.
It does not seem to me that this assertion is a matter of absolute or 
objective fact one way or the other, but that is it not an 
unreasonable claim or one likely to be misunderstood.
Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416 office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440 fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667 cell
phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Saturday, 9 August 2003 23:40:07 UTC

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /