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

Re: [Fwd: RDFCore 2nd last call announcement]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:31:00 +0100
Message-ID: <3F958974.1020507@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Hammond, Tony (ELSLON)" <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi Tony,

I'm sorry I nearly missed this reply.  I don't get the time to read rdf 
interest as often and as thoroughly as I'd like.  If you want to make a 
formal comment on any of the specs, the place to send it is 
www-rdf-comments@w3.org.  That way it will definitely not get missed.

But to the point in hand:

Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) wrote:
> Hi:
> I wanted to raise a point about an example application (6.2 PRISM) given in
> the RDF Primer. It is my understanding that no RDF schemas have yet been
> defined by the PRISM Working Group for use with the PRISM term sets, which
> from an RDF POV would render the this application less than optimal.
> I have earlier developed an RDF schema for the main PRISM term set and
> shared this with a couple of members of the Working Group to get their
> feedback. This RDF schema was announced on this list a few months back, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2003Jul/0133.htm
> The RDF schema is currently lodged at
> 	http://www2.elsevier.co.uk/~tony/spec/rdfs/prism.rdfs 

Cool.  The wonder of the web - one can just do that and make a contribution.

> I am wondering if this lack of RDF schemas undermines the PRISM example
> application in the Primer in any way,

I think your point may be:

   a) schemas for RDF are a good thing, and we should encourage folks to 
produce schemas for the vocabularies they define.

   b) are we then encouraging an undesirable practise by referring to 
PRISM in the primer, since they haven't defined a schema

Does that capture the case you are making?

I'd suggest that RDF schemas are useful, but not mandatory, so the lack 
of one for PRISM does not render it unsuitable for reference in the primer.

  whether the Primer actually cares if
> the applications it discusses are generally useful,  and also whether the
> draft RDF schema I prepared might be accommodated at some more central
> resource repository if it were to be judged of use and after any review.

That is not a question I can answer as I have no influence on the 
acceptance criteria for any resource respositories.  However, a schema 
for PRISM that has the support of the PRISM folks seems like a 'good 
thing' to me and making sure folks can find that schema also falls in 
that category.  So warm encouragement in helping to get that to happen.

Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2003 15:31:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:47 UTC