W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: ACTION: task force unasserted triples

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:47:17 -0400
Message-ID: <031601c1ebc0$76c86fa0$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote:
> But I had the distinct impression that this option was ruled out at
> the Amsterdam F2F on the grounds that any solution that involved
> "lots of little files" wasn't acceptable. That was late on the second
> day, and things were a little chaotic, but since then I have been
> working on the assumption that we have to find some other way to do
> it. If that assumption is wrong, maybe someone else who was at the
> meeting can correct my memory.
>

Yes, I objected to the requirement that an ontology be published in _at
least_ 2 files (this is very likely to cause real world confusion, and a
host of other usability problems).

If we need something like a file of 'dark triples' then why not allow:

<rdf:RDF>
    ...light stuff here ...
   <rdf:RDF>
    ... dark stuff here...
   </rdf:RDF>
  ... light stuff here...
</rdf:RDF>

or

<rdf:RDF>
    ...light stuff here ...
   <rdf:dark>
    ... dark stuff here...
   </rdf:dark>
  ... light stuff here...
</rdf:RDF>

or else I am willing to consider 'dark namespaces' if embedded <rdf:RDF>
will itself be a disaster.

Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 14:51:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT