- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:31:18 -0000
- To: "Bill dehOra" <BdehOra@interx.com>, "'Aaron Swartz'" <aswartz@upclink.com>, "RDF Comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> Looked at in a certain way, this is a very, very good thing. If A > moves to schema aa and expects to be able to converse with B > using schema a, Don't forget that the SW aim is that eventually both A and B can convert their systems from using "a" schema to "aa" schema automtically by semantic botostrapping. O.K.... let's say A uses "a", and B uses "a". Now, C comes along with "aa". A tries to read something of C's (written in aa), but can't. Luckily either the aa schema has assertions about how it relates to "a", allowing A and B to upgrade, or these assertions are found in a third party index (ahem...SWAG...ahem). Versioning is good... but I thought that part of the SW was how to get around versioning? -- Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer @prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> . [ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2001 10:29:11 UTC