RE: semantics status of RDF(S)

• From: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>
• Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:48:16 +0600
• To: "Peter Crowther" <Peter.Crowther@melandra.com>
• Cc: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <EBEPLGMHCDOJJJPCFHEFOECLDAAA.danny@panlanka.net>

I wholeheartedly agree that RDF(S) would be a whole lot better if there
weren't ambiguities, but surely the use of 3rd party (your own) formalisms
isn't as diabolical as the browser wars. Say part of RDF(S) is too vague for
me, so for now I use :

xmlns:s="http://localhost/schema"

but then what I was wanting to use appears in a popular schema, so now I use
:

xmlns:s="http://foo.org/schema"

finally w3 gets it right so then I use :

xmlns:s="http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema"

easier than that rotten Javascript browser detection stuff, wouldn't you
say?

Cheers,
Danny.

Received on Monday, 2 April 2001 13:51:21 UTC