- From: Wolfgang Orthuber <orthuber@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:22:52 +0100
- To: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Cc: public-dwbp-comments@w3.org
Martynas, You may look at the RDF example shown in figure 1 of http://oceanrep.geomar.de/34556 . The DV (e.g. figure 4) is (in text form and so not optimized for hardware but nevertheless) much shorter, user defined, uniformly identified, comparable, searchable according to user defined criteria. There are more advantages. Main disadvantage is probably that the standardized online definitions are essential for understanding DVs. But also today we need somewhere an exact definition. It is advantageous if it can be at once located at the URL. Probably stepwise conversion of RDF expressions into DVs is recommendable. There is much freedom for DS definitions. Also namespaces, vocabularies can be defined as DSs. http://numericsearch.com shows that standardized definition of DSs (and DVs) is possible, but up to now there is no exact standard for this. I assumed that W3C could be interested in this, after rethinking this in detail. If there is interest we could deepen this together step by step. Wolfgang On 13.01.2017 16:09, Martynas Jusevičius wrote: > TL;DR > > What's your point, exactly? What specifically are you > criticising/proposing? Name document sections, specifications etc. > > > Martynas >
Received on Friday, 13 January 2017 16:23:06 UTC