Yes, but I thought we were talking about the name of a language, not an instance of its use. The original document talked about "RDF Schema". That wasn't referring to a set of declarations, it was referring to a language; more completely, something like "The RDF Schema Definition Language". You yourself just used the term "RDF schema vocab[ulary]". Is there something wrong with that? --Frank Dan Brickley wrote: > > the problem with 'schema' used as a noun is that there are lots of > rdf docs that use RDF schema vocab in various ways, and only some of them > (intuitively) feel like things we might label 'schema'. Pinning down > criteeria for which docs 'are schemas' and which 'merely use RDFS vocab' > is pretty slippery. Not that we couldn't do it, just that we haven't yet, > and it's non-trivial. We might try defining 'namespace' while we're at > it. The XML folk didn't have much luck with that, though... > > dan -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 13:43:15 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:40 EDT