On Jun 6, 2006, at 12:40 AM, patrickdlogan wrote: > > [RDF assumes] a single namespace for identification... > > [TM do not] > > Can you explain that faster than I can find a good reference on the > web? > TMs assume that you can use a URI to refer to the representation that lives behind HTTPs resource abstraction. TMs assume that you can use a URI to say "I am refering to this bits and bytes thing, not any abstraction of it". The problem (IMHO) is that HTTP and URI specs define certain semantics and whatever other stuff makes use of HTTP and URI specs cannot just bend these semantics to mean something else. So, since with URIs you (deliberately!) cannot address the bits and bytes, how can TMs say they can?
Note that the above does not apply to the part of the standard known as the TM Reference Model (meanwhile aka Subject Maps, I think); this part[1] is intended to provide certain formal underpinnings to the whole story; essentially a (weighted, directed hyper-) graph based data model with arbitrary (externally defined) identity rules for the nodes (and the resulting merging of the nodes). Puh. (Whoever want to know more about this, gimme a call :-) Jan [1] It originates from the TM camp having broken apart into two opponing parties back in 2001 and the quest of both parties to remain part of the (ISO-) game. > Thanks, > Patrick > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get to your groups with one click. Know instantly when new email arrives http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/NhFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
