- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:03:28 +0100
- To: Wolfgang Orthuber <orthuber@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de>
- Cc: public-dwbp-comments@w3.org
Wolfgang, are you suggesting that 20 years of work on the RDF stack should be replaced by something based on a 5-page PDF? On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Wolfgang Orthuber <orthuber@kfo-zmk.uni-kiel.de> wrote: > 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 19:04:04 UTC