- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:27:09 +0100
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 27 Dec 2007, at 05:18, Mark Baker wrote: > FWIW, RDF Forms are intended to target this problem space as well. > > http://www.markbaker.ca/2003/05/RDF-Forms/ Mark, can you give us some background on RDF Forms? I've seen the proposal before, but so far have trouble seeing how and what for it should be used. What's the scenario for which you expect RDF Forms to be useful? Is it currently in use somewhere? Cheers, Richard > > > Mark. > > On 12/19/07, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote: >> >> Tim, >> >> On 19 Dec 2007, at 15:54, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: >>> Is there an RDFS Class of SPARQL endpoints? >> >> Semantic Sitemaps are a minimalist extension of Google's Sitemap >> protocol [1], which is XML-based, and not RDF. So at the moment we >> don't define RDFS classes. >> >> Once our basic spec is finalized, we will look into making a matching >> RDF vocabulary and GRDDL transform. This would be nice because of >> RDF's natural extensibility, and there would be natural synergies >> with >> POWDER. This vocabulary would of course include a class for SPARQL >> endpoints. >> >> Richard >> >> [1] http://sitemaps.org/ > > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com >
Received on Friday, 28 December 2007 17:27:18 UTC