- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 13:25:48 -0400
- To: Mark van Assem <mark@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Antoine Isaac <Antoine.Isaac@KB.nl>, Mark van Assem <mark@cs.vu.nl>, Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>, public-esw-thes@w3.org
* Mark van Assem <mark@few.vu.nl> [2006-05-31 17:21+0300] > > Yep, very right. But there are some other 'errors' or constraints that > the SKOS schema itself does not prevent/enforce, e.g. 'No two concepts > in the same concept scheme may have the same value for skos:prefLabel in > a given language.' We could include just one more constraint or > 'warning' rule. It's entirely natural and healthy for the machine-readable bits not to capture everything. Otherwise, we'd have no reason to go on inventing ever richer formalisms :) (OWL, RIF Rules, ...) [[ This specification does not attempt to enumerate all the possible forms of vocabulary description that are useful for representing the meaning of RDF classes and properties. Instead, the RDF vocabulary description strategy is to acknowledge that there are many techniques through which the meaning of classes and properties can be described. Richer vocabulary or 'ontology' languages such as DAML+OIL, W3C's [OWL] language, inference rule languages and other formalisms (for example temporal logics) will each contribute to our ability to capture meaningful generalizations about data in the Web. RDF vocabulary designers can create and deploy Semantic Web applications using the RDF vocabulary description language 1.0 facilities, while exploring richer vocabulary description languages that share this general approach. ]]-- http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ Dan
Received on Thursday, 1 June 2006 17:25:56 UTC