- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:37:51 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-sw-meaning@w3.org
(Lots of good points; I understand your skepticism.) Peter: > I would instead label Bijan's approach as the ``Do what you can'' approach. > Applications that only understand RDF would process documents that looked > like RDF as RDF. Applications that can understand OWL (DL) would process > documents that look like OWL (DL) as OWL. More sophisticated applications > could use whatever information is available to make the determination, > including any standards that emerge. This appears to scale very well. How does it handle the case of evil-OWL? Or someone using dc:author as a synonym for rdf:type? Maybe those aren't very real, but how about this: There's been a lot of confusion over whether the range of dc:author is/should be Author (a person) or AuthorsName (a Literal string). If the powers-that-be in Dublin Core came down on one side or the other of this issue, what levers would they be able to use in moving the world to their chosen approach? Let's assume for simplicity that this is for a new version of the vocabulary, with a new namespace. Some options: 1. Documentation on their website, not at the namespace address 2. Documentation on their website, at the namespace address 3. OWL on their website, not at the namespace address 4. OWL on their website, at the namespace address 5. Advertising, including ads in appropriate trade magazines, and encouraging word-of-mouth 6. Search for invalid instance data and talk to the authors 7. Target the tool makers, making sure they consider the wrong approach in error (essentially hard coding the ontology) 8. Target the laws and contracts around the world which currently specify use of Dublin Core; make sure they refer to #1/#2 9. Target the laws and contracts around the world which currently specify use of Dublin Core; make sure they refer to #3/#4 Which of those seem good to you? What else could they do? -- sandro
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2003 14:35:21 UTC