Jonathan Borden scripsit:

>  There isn;t much point in discussing either of these topics further, they
>  are included in RDF for legacy purposes but left *undefined*. This is a
>  polite way of saying that both of the above are *useless* -- you can't even
>  argue the topic, because the WD gives no meaning over which to argue -- the
>  ultimate in damned by faint praise.

Umm, I think you are severely over-interpreting.  It's quite common for
a formal semantics to be incomplete, either because the omitted items
are intractable, or because they're just too annoying to specify.
That doesn't mean they aren't part of the deal.

-- 
Business before pleasure, if not too bloomering long before.
        --Nicholas van Rijn
                John Cowan <jcowan@[...].com> 
                        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan  http://www.reutershealth.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>