On 2002-06-10 20:28, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote: > > 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.). If I understand correctly what Graham is saying here, I agree ;-) I.e. we would not say rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:range rdfs:Schema . Rather, we'd say (as is presently defined) rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:range rdf:Resource . and then for a particular case :someTerm rdfs:isDefinedBy :someResource . :someResource a rdfs:Schema . Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.comReceived on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 04:12:03 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:12 EDT