- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 18:53:36 +0100
- To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@acm.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
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. So [ a foaf:Person; foaf:mbox <mailto:me@eg.com>; ]. Is a useful statement it seems to me. If you retrieve http:// xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person 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 corrected). 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 useful. Henry 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