- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:28:19 +0100
- To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:01 AM 6/10/02 -0500, Eric Miller wrote: >A couple of open issues come to mind... > >- do we formally give a name to a schema resource rather than let >different communities define them (this request has surfaced from the DC >community working on Registries). As was mentioned on the telecon, this >approach may be useful for clarifying the relationship between rdf >Schemas and Web Ontologies (e.g. rdfs:Schema subclassof web:Ontology) > >my suggestion would be 'yes' > >- do we formalize the range rdfs:isDefinedBy to be one of these schema >resources I'm a little uncomfortable with what this might be saying, but I'd be happy if we can describe the schema resource referenced by rdfs:isDefinedBy as: [[ An RDF document containing defining information about some RDF vocabulary (i.e. about some RDF properties and classes). ]] What I want to avoid doing here is (a) creating an idea that a schema is somehow apart from the wider body of RDF data, and (b) that a schema contains only statements based on the RDFS-defined vocabulary (rdfs:range, rdfs:domain, etc.). #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 13:15:59 UTC