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

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

From: Victor Lindesay <victor@schemaweb.info>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:36:46 -0000
To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c3da79$8cfdd810$b5807ad5@vicsoft.co.uk>

Joshua wrote:
> True, you can define a mapping, and that is nice to have if you get
> stuck in the inevitable situation where two different people use
> different terms to mean the same thing.  But it's even nicer 
> to just use
> a term that others are more likely to understand in the first place.
> IOW, the ability to map between terms is a feature to be resilient in
> the face of antisocial vocabularies rather than an excuse to be
> antisocial.

Can we stop using the term anti-social in this context please? It's RDF
software which has to deal with this and software doesn't give a damn.

I suppose using the same argument it's anti-social that people speak
different languages and don't all speak and understand English!

We are constantly told by RDF experts that one of the advantages of RDF
over XML is the ability to merge, understand and process data from
different namespaces. This is one of the prime tenets of the Semantic
Web. The piece that I referred to originally (that I suspect is a spout
by one of these so called experts) is a direct contradiction of this.
Can we have a more 'joined up' thinking on this please?

BTW Joshua, nice to see a Microsoft guy with an interest in RDF. What's
the current attitude at Microsoft regarding RDF?
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 03:45:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:49 UTC