W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2002

Re: refining closure text for rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:43:17 -0500
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Message-Id: <74CA3539-7CC3-11D6-8656-0003936780B2@aaronsw.com>

On Monday, June 10, 2002, at 06:17  PM, Eric Miller wrote:

> so to be clear, the suggestion is to add:

Checking the DAML Crawler on how this property has been used in the 
past, I find the vast majority of statements using isDefinedBy are from 
the DCMI schemas or the OntoBroker schemas and are used in this fashion. 
However, there are some that aren't:

<http://purl.org/net/swn#URI> rdfs:isDefinedBy 
  - http://infomesh.net/swns/util.rdf

<dcq:RFC1766 rdf:parseType="Resource">
<rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1766.txt" />
  - http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/SiRPAC-bugs/JUN-11-2001-1.rdf

rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#NT-EncName> .
(and so on for each element...)
  - http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/infoset/infoset-diagram.rdf

rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/1999/10/nsuri> .
  - http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact.rdf

rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt>
  - http://www.w3.org/Addressing/schemes.rdf

Just thought the WG should be informed,
Aaron Swartz [http://www.aaronsw.com]
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 18:43:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:13 UTC