schema

I've got comments from Frank and Jan to fold in, and am still fiddling
with images (using omnigraffle). Aaron's right that the latter half of the
spec could be shorter, though it can't just be a table of classes and
properties; we need to say what they are. i'll try using HTML definition
lists.

I think the doc is starting to look like a Working Draft again, but I
doubt its a release candidate. Having it available prominently as a
WG-internal draft during WWW2002 (alongside Primer) from our home page is
probably the way to go.

Re the classes and properties, did I miss any or goof any definitions?
there is some terminology confusion: re container, and i'm not sure what
to do with the extensibility stuff yet. That's quite important given the
whole webont layering thing, should probably be lifted up into the first
part of the doc.

Another worry re terminology is that we have two Semantic Web working
groups. One group calls RDF schemas 'schemas', the other calls them
'ontologies'. To date we've not really used the latter term in RDF Core
specs. I personally don't like it, but that's not important. What is
importnat is terminological consistency at least within the RDF-based
corner of W3C's work. I'm stumped as to what we do about that. People will
ask us (of some RDF/XML schema that uses WebOnt machinery) whether it is
an 'ontology' or a 'schema'. Maybe we don't need an answer, but it does
seem a bit odd to not know collectively (in WebOnt + RDF Core) what we
think we're talking about. Editorial suggestions / contribs on this
welcomed...

Dan

Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 06:20:55 UTC