> I see no RDF mapping in this proposal. It is clear that one could use > the RDF to Frame mapping to map from RDF to Frames and attach them via > this metadata representation but (a) that doesn't account for the *i > component and how that relates to any Frame identifiers and (b) the > reverse mapping is not possible. I'm not comfortable with introducing a > metadata notation to the semantic web which can't be mapped to RDF > without some serious consultation. > > This is not yet a formal objection. Up to now, to avoid blocking > progress, I've abstained (+/- 0) rather than objected to schemes I'm > less happy with. For this one I'd need to think about it some more and > consult with colleagues. I really want the third column in the BLD table, showing what the RDF/XML looks like for each PS and XML construct. Axel took one pass at it (using N-Triples) [1], but it needs some more attention, and I think RDF/XML would be better for this case. -- Sandro [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/AbstractModelReceived on Sunday, 4 May 2008 20:17:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:07:44 UTC