- From: <siebeneicher@oaklett.org>
- Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 08:18:20 +0100
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
Jeremy Wong 黃泓量 wrote: > Why do you use the IRI "urn:sitemap:root" as the starting-point of your > software's navigation? I think you should use the "rdfs:Class" facility > instead of defining the use of any specific IRI... The short answer is, that i never mentioned exactly this question. The long answer is, that during writing of the specification i thought of using OWL as theoreticaly the best format to represent the ontology of a website. Unfortunately Firefox do not supprt any OWL or RDFS and instead i decide to use simple RDF. It was only of practical reasons that i chose RDF. (Yes, RDF and RDFS could be combined, but at the time of writing i want a strict separation) I know that the NNS format has some faults and from my point of view NNS is not intended to be an official standard format for the internet although it has some interesting ideas. For example the "container" and "embedded" elements which complements each other. If any container or emebedded element would be named like a Class is namend in RDFS, it would be similar to RDFS but without using RDFS. To my regret, i do not know much of the current OWL/RDFS/RDF/... trends and on going works. So, please tell me what practical advantage users and programms(or programmers) would have if the format would use rdfs:Class instead of the IRI "urn:sitemap:root" to define the starting point of the Sitemaps graph. Markus
Received on Sunday, 8 January 2006 07:19:15 UTC