W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2004

Re: Asunto: Re: [www-rdf-interest] <none>

From: Cameron McCormack <cam-www-rdf-interest@aka.mcc.id.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:07:04 +1100
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040114000704.GC25638@mcc.id.au>

Joshua Allen:
> Well, if you want to tell someone that you are feeling cheerful, you can
> just choose to use an existing word like 'cheerful', or you can invent a
> new one.  Inventing a new word and then having to explain to everyone
> who asks that "My new word really means 'cheerful'" is bound to annoy
> and is not very sociable.  If, on the other hand, you don't care whether
> or not someone else understands what you are saying, because it's for
> your own consumption only, then you are also not very sociable.

But isn't one of the major things about the semantic web that you can
declare two different URI predicates to mean the same thing (with OWL
or something) and then RDF processors will just understand it?

Sure it may not be the best idea to start off with a complete different
vocabulary, but as soon as someone writes some RDF that equates some
terms then everything is fine.

-- 
Cameron McCormack
|  Web: http://mcc.id.au/
|  ICQ: 26955922
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 19:09:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:04 GMT