- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 11:50:15 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 18:04 02/01/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: [...] >I gave this a try, and had to give up quite when I realized that the >Introduction directly contradicts itself: I think I've fixed that. [...] >What I was working on was looking like: > >RDF's vocabulary description language, RDF Schema, is an extension of RDF. >RDF Schema provides mechanisms for describing groups of related resources >and the relationships between these resources. ... > >... > >RDF Schema vocabulary descriptions are written in RDF. The extra >descriptive power of RDF Schema over RDF is carried in a collection of RDF >resources. These resources are used to describe characteristics of other >RDF resources, such as domains and ranges of properties. > >... I really liked your text. Clear thinking leads to clear writing. I've incorporated something similar, replacing the original para with: [[ RDF's vocabulary description language, RDF Schema, is an extension of RDF. It provides mechanisms for describing groups of related resources and the relationships betwen these resources. RDF vocabulary descriptions are written in RDF. The extra descriptive power of the RDF vocabulary description language is carried in a collection of RDF resources defined in this document. These resources are used to describe characteristics of other RDF resources, such as the domains and ranges of properties. The RDF vocabulary description language allows for a finer grained mixing of machine-processable vocabularies, and addresses the need [EXTWEB] to create metadata in which statements can draw upon multiple vocabularies that are managed in a decentralized fashion by independent communities. ]] Are we nearly there yet? Brian
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 06:48:54 UTC