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

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

From: Stephen Pollei <stephen_pollei@comcast.net>
Date: 14 Jan 2004 08:27:38 -0800
To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam-www-rdf-interest@aka.mcc.id.au>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <1074097660.972.21.camel@fury>
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 16:54, Joshua Allen wrote:
> 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.
Actually I think the use of subpropof et al between different
vocabularies is quite good sociable behavior. It is only antisocial to
declare new terms and not fit it into the bigger universe of schemas.
I think it is especially powerful when you have to use only two or so
terms from someone else's namespace all the time. You can import them
into your namespace and still have equivalence with their terms and help
fight what I've been calling "the Norman Namespace Explosion Syndrome".
I think that sometimes *not* incorporating others terms more directly
into your namespace is antisocial towards those who must create, send,
store, and etc rdf documents-- they must declare use of yet another
namespace in *all* documents instead of you taking care of the problem
in *one* place, your schema. I think people should not be afraid of
overlap, they should encourage a healthy balance.

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 11:35:54 GMT

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