W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sw-meaning@w3.org > October 2003

Re: The RDF Approach to Indicating Language-In-Use

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:37:51 -0500
Message-Id: <200310291937.h9TJbpH0011508@roke.hawke.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org


(Lots of good points; I understand your skepticism.)

Peter:
> I would instead label Bijan's approach as the ``Do what you can'' approach.
> Applications that only understand RDF would process documents that looked
> like RDF as RDF.  Applications that can understand OWL (DL) would process
> documents that look like OWL (DL) as OWL.  More sophisticated applications
> could use whatever information is available to make the determination,
> including any standards that emerge.  This appears to scale very well.

How does it handle the case of evil-OWL?  Or someone using dc:author
as a synonym for rdf:type?  Maybe those aren't very real, but how
about this: There's been a lot of confusion over whether the range of
dc:author is/should be Author (a person) or AuthorsName (a Literal
string).  If the powers-that-be in Dublin Core came down on one side
or the other of this issue, what levers would they be able to use in
moving the world to their chosen approach?

Let's assume for simplicity that this is for a new version of the
vocabulary, with a new namespace.

Some options: 

   1.  Documentation on their website, not at the namespace address
   2.  Documentation on their website, at the namespace address
   3.  OWL on their website, not at the namespace address
   4.  OWL on their website, at the namespace address
   5.  Advertising, including ads in appropriate trade magazines, and
       encouraging word-of-mouth
   6.  Search for invalid instance data and talk to the authors
   7.  Target the tool makers, making sure they consider the
       wrong approach in error (essentially hard coding the ontology)
   8.  Target the laws and contracts around the world which currently
       specify use of Dublin Core; make sure they refer to #1/#2
   9.  Target the laws and contracts around the world which currently
       specify use of Dublin Core; make sure they refer to #3/#4

Which of those seem good to you?   What else could they do?

    -- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 14:35:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:15 GMT