Re: "Including" other RDF and RDFS files

Danny Ayers wrote:

>>Well that feels very much like "Let them eat cake".    We *do* want
>>people to use the same property to refer from one RDF graph to another,
>>and for that to happen the WG should (imho) put semref in RDFS.
>On the need I agree with Seth - right now I'm heading towards a painfully
>arbitrary interpretation of this kind of link in the app I'm working on. On
>the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced the benefits of adding a new
>element outway the rejiggling it would cause. I suppose my own preferrence
>would be for there to be a standardised approach to qualifying
>seeAlso/isDefinedBy (strictly speaking, ok, there is already a standard -
>'use RDF!', but guidelines on this might help keep people reading from the
>same map). If there was a consensus way of doing this, then semref: could
>easily be layer on top as a kind of abbreviation for the triples needed in a
>qualified seeAlso/isDefinedBy.
I too would like a standardized approach to qualifying references.   I'm 
thinking out loud a bit here and am not convinced that semref is the 
solution to all our problems.  Frequently we need to know the grammar of 
the resource and what relationship it has to the subject.  I made a 
mentograph [1] of the relationship between our two blogs .... how would 
you'all model this ?


This CMap is on the beta test public CMap server under SemanticWeb and 
is named blogs.  Your welcomed to mutate it according to your view of 
things ... also if you want you could answer the question it poses and 
correct any of my mis spellings, namings, namespaceings.

Seth Russell

Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 12:45:35 UTC