W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2005

Re: How will the semantic web emerge

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:53:36 +0100
Message-Id: <EEF8181A-ED41-49AE-8D65-2DD060A1F80D@bblfish.net>
Cc: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>

All I see is a re-statement of an opinion on your litmus test page.  
Not a backing of it.
I have not followed the XSD problem. But there is a difference with  
OWL ontologies in that they
machine readable descriptions   can easily be placed at the other end  
of the URL which identifies your class.


[ a foaf:Person;
   foaf:mbox <mailto:me@eg.com>;

Is a useful statement it seems to me. If you retrieve http:// 
with the application/xml+rdf mime type then you will get a machine  
readable description of the
type. I don't think it is that easy with xsd (but am happy to be  

Anyway, it helps to know that I am dealing with a foaf:Person not a  
foaf:Agent. In rdf every
statement is optional of course. But that does not meant they are not  


On 20 Dec 2005, at 18:39, Joshua Allen wrote:

> I call it my RDF "litmus test".  I think "rdf:type is optional, and at
> best a hint".  It's the same sort of issues we had with XSD -- what is
> the boundary where XSD is useful?  XSD for validation is fine.  XSD  
> as a
> type system is going too far.
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 17:54:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:55 UTC