W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Weakness in the Semantic Web?

From: LYNN,JAMES (HP-USA,ex1) <james.lynn@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 06:11:48 -0700
Message-ID: <079FD72E42C9D311B854009027650E6F0F264F0D@xatl02.atl.hp.com>
To: "'jimbobbs@hotmail.com'" <jimbobbs@hotmail.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, wperry@fiduciary.com, costello@mitre.org

I think it really is that simple. It's just a matter of reaching some degree
of consensus in the community (which community?) that allows applications to
"understand" what is meant by this assertion. It's a matter of trading ease
of processing for rich expressiveness.  Hmmm...RDF Lite? Just kidding.

James Lynn

-----Original Message-----
From: Jimmy Cerra [mailto:jimbobbs@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 10:49 PM
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org; wperry@fiduciary.com; costello@mitre.org
Subject: RE: Weakness in the Semantic Web?



> I wonder if it might be as simple as reaching agreement on how
> to distinguish between the two. Can we come up with a convention
> that allows owners/authors to assert "This adheres to the Gold
> standard"; not sure what "This" refers to... an entire ontology,
> a part of one, a URI, a piece of an RDF assertion?

Will the following work out?

<r:RDF
   xmlns:r="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
   xmlns:rs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#">
   <r:Description r:about="">
      <rs:isDefinedBy r:resource="http://www.goldstandard.com#" />
      <rs:isDefinedBy r:resource="http://www.jimmycerra.com#" />
   </r:Description>
   <!-- rest of document -->
</r:RDF>

--
James F. Cerra 
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 09:11:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:59 GMT