W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: RDFS versioning

From: Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:38:42 -0000
Message-ID: <23CF4BF2C499D411907E00508BDC95E131F8E7@ntmews_01.interx.com>
To: "'Sean B. Palmer'" <sean@mysterylights.com>, Bill dehOra <BdehOra@interx.com>, "'Aaron Swartz'" <aswartz@upclink.com>, RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>


: Sean B. Palmer:
:
:Don't forget that the SW aim is that eventually both A and B can
:convert their systems from using "a" schema to "aa" schema
:automtically by semantic botostrapping.

Yep, that's why I said I wanted to ignore discovery ... different
architectural issue.


:O.K.... let's say A uses "a", and B uses "a". Now, C comes along with
:"aa". A tries to read something of C's (written in aa), but can't.
:Luckily either the aa schema has assertions about how it relates to
:"a", allowing A and B to upgrade, or these assertions are found in a
:third party index (ahem...SWAG...ahem).

This is the hard bit. I call it metalinking. Very long links imply issues
with semantic drift. I think this will solved out of band by people hand
tuning stuff for some time to come ... no bad thing really.


:Versioning is good... but I thought that part of the SW was how to get
:around versioning?

Couldn't say, automation seems to the main goal.

Bill de hOra
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2001 10:39:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:27 GMT