W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: RDF draft structure (was: Schedule)

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 13:01:00 -0500
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6D08B13D-C0CD-11D5-AFD7-003065D5CE46@upclink.com>
On Sunday, October 14, 2001, at 12:30  PM, Dan Brickley wrote:

>>>   RDF Schema       normative
>> I'd like to make sure our RDF Schema spec is short, sweet and
>> easily replaceable by the specification released by the WebOnt
>> WG. I think the best of doing this is split out the RDF
> The (draft) Web Ont charter does not require them to produce a Schema
> language for RDF, nor is it couched in terms of 'replacement'.

It's a shame we have no WebOnt WG to ask about this but if "A 
Web ontology language, that builds on current Web 
languages [...] (such as RDFS)" isn't an upgraded schema 
language then I don't know what it is.

I've not been able to get a clear definition of what 
distinguishes a schema language from an ontology language and 
all signs indicate that their the same thing. If this is true, 
I'd like not to confuse RDF users further by having to make them 
jump back and forth between the WebOnt, RDFS and DAML specs to 
get their jobs done. I'd like to have one document that explains 
it all.

[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Sunday, 14 October 2001 14:01:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC