W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Re: RDFS bug "A property can have at most one range property"

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:44:28 -0000
Message-ID: <001801c0645a$fdd801c0$d0dc93c3@z5n9x1>
To: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>
Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>, "Ora Lassila" <daml@lassila.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> What would be nice, instead of embedding mappings ahead of time (you
> can't possibly guess all the mappings ahead of time), is given two
> schemas, a facility to create a third schema later on that posits
> mappings between the two.

That's more or less what I had in mind. It would be nice if from a multitude
of Schemas you could just generate your own Schema...a job for XSLT I

> Sounds like a use case for out of document XLink processing.

I don't think so: using properties of RDF means that they can be understood
by RDF processors, whereas XLink doesn't even have a way of including the
linked document into the refering documents parse tree (see Eve Maler's
current thread on xml-dev).

> The number of such equivalence types may be small
> enough to get them into RDFS before it goes recommendation...

Ah, if you mean including them as properties in RDF-S, then that would work.
Actually, that's a very good idea [RDFS WG, are you watching?] :-)

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 11:46:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:33 UTC