- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:42:32 -0400
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Yes, but I thought we were talking about the name of a language, not an instance of its use. The original document talked about "RDF Schema". That wasn't referring to a set of declarations, it was referring to a language; more completely, something like "The RDF Schema Definition Language". You yourself just used the term "RDF schema vocab[ulary]". Is there something wrong with that? --Frank Dan Brickley wrote: > > the problem with 'schema' used as a noun is that there are lots of > rdf docs that use RDF schema vocab in various ways, and only some of them > (intuitively) feel like things we might label 'schema'. Pinning down > criteeria for which docs 'are schemas' and which 'merely use RDFS vocab' > is pretty slippery. Not that we couldn't do it, just that we haven't yet, > and it's non-trivial. We might try defining 'namespace' while we're at > it. The XML folk didn't have much luck with that, though... > > dan -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 13:43:15 UTC