W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: why S doesn't require double properties [was: Datatyping Summary V4]

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 22:06:11 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020204220406.03f81da0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Patrick,

I understood the question OK.  I just don't agree that this:
[[[
>One should be able to merge graphs where folks have employed the same
>vocabulary, regardless of idiom used, without concern for conflict.
]]]
Has to be an overriding concern.

The rest, I agree with.

#g
--

At 11:57 PM 2/4/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>On 2002-02-04 22:54, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
>wrote:
>
> > At 08:01 PM 2/4/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> >> To get clarity and closure on this:
> >>
> >>    ASSERTION: Use of both S/A+B idioms will require two versions
> >>               of PRISM, DC, MARC, ONIX, etc., one version for
> >>               each idiom, and adoption of S/A+B will require
> >>               the maintainers of those ontologies to create
> >>               and managae dual versions in order
> >>               for their ontologies to be used with RDF by
> >>               communities employing both idioms concurrently,
> >>               or to merge RDF knowledge expressed using
> >>               both idioms.
> >>
> >> Do you (or does anyone) disagree?
> >
> > I disagree.  Under S, one of version each application (ontology) will do
> > fine, as long as they don't use the same vocabulary in conflicting
> > ways.  And software that wants to syndicate across systems that use
> > different idioms must know about the different vocabularies being used to
> > be able to translate between them.
> >
> > It may be a little messy, but I think it's quite doable, which is why I can
> > live with S even if I think it's worth a little effort to see if we can't
> > find an even cleaner solution.
>
>I'm not sure you fully understood the question.
>
>To use the same vocabulary with both the S-A and S-B idioms is, per
>my understanding, to use it in conflicting ways.
>
>One should be able to merge graphs where folks have employed the same
>vocabulary, regardless of idiom used, without concern for conflict.
>
>If they can't do that, then either they can't use both idioms freely
>or they need to vocabularies.
>
>Right?
>
>Patrick
>
>--
>
>Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
>Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
>Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 17:07:01 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:04 EDT