W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > September 2005

Re: The semantics of rdfs:label

From: Ian Davis <iand@internetalchemy.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:35:21 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <41358.163.117.131.32.1126715721.squirrel@webmail2.pair.com>
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: "Ian Davis" <iand@internetalchemy.org>, danbri@w3.org, "Christopher Welty" <welty@us.ibm.com>, "Lars Marius Garshol" <larsga@ontopia.net>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org

danbri@w3.org wrote:
> That would be my preference, but I'm not sure the decision should be
> taken on a vocab-by-vocab basis. OWL Full systems I suspect are more
> likely to be comfortable with Web crawling. I expect it wouldn't be
> easy to get consensus on this, as the decision could be seen as
> answering the question "which is the default/main way of using OWL,
> and which is the niche interest specialist version? ...".

Fair point.

I guess it's too much to ask for DL systems to throw away triples that
don't make sense - probably can't be done at the individual triple level.

Is this a candidate for best practice work - i.e. what schemas to put
where and how to select what you want.

Just occurs to me that we're talking about different representations of
the same resource, which suggests that content negotiation may have a part
to play. That would really need different media types for the different
OWL flavours.

Ian
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2005 16:35:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:12 UTC