W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2002

Question (RE: rdfs:isDefinedBy (Was Re: Representing DCMI semantics as RDF schemas versus Web pages))

From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:17:32 +0300
Message-ID: <E657D8576967CF448D6AF22CB42DD2690FF296@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Bill de hOra" <dehora@eircom.net>
Cc: "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill de hOra [mailto:dehora@eircom.net] 

> > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patrick
> > Stickler 

> > So, sticking some RDF schema on a server under the namespace 
> > URL won't work anyway.
> 
> No, it'll work, this is the web after all. It just won't be implied
> by RDF. We can bang on about the semantics of XML namespaces with
> respect to RDF, but  people will go out and get things to work in
> an ad-hoc case by case fashion a la RDDL. 

Since namespaces won't do, a question on (other) hacks and how effective
they can be. I'm interested on 'per type' or 'per property' validation.
Suppose I have an RDF schema accessible on-line, can I just use rdf:type
from within instances of Objects to point to their validation module.
No?

Thanks for any pointers,

Manos
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 06:17:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:54 GMT