On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 07:39:08PM +0200, Dan Brickley wrote: > >I'm looking at [1], also known as [2]. > > > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos.html > >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/skos > > > >This document calls itself "SKOS Simple Knowledge > >Organization System RDF Schema". > > > >One obvious problem is that the document is clearly an HTML > >page and not an RDF schema. It may seem obvious to us that it > >is really _about_ the RDF schema, but I can well imagine this > >causing some confusion. > > Wondering - would adding an RDFa expression of the SKOS schema into that > document increase of decrease the amount of confusion in the world? :) If it were meant to replace the schema, that would set an interesting precedent, but if the RDFa were simply to replicate the contents of the schema, I'd find that confusing...! Ed invoked the DRY principle [1] when this question came up with regard to LCSH [2]. Tom [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRY_code [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Oct/0134.html -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 19:16:09 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 19:16:10 GMT