W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2000

Re: RDFS bug "A property can have at most one range property"

From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:06:09 -0000
Message-ID: <019401c063b6$39e23e60$9445893e@dehora>
To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>, "Ora Lassila" <daml@lassila.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>

Hash: SHA1

: > Whether for simplicity one defines synonyms in the DAML
: > namesapce for RDFS proerties is a question which is open.
: As the number of RDF Schemas increase, it is becoming more and more
: difficult to create complex RDF (such as the XHTML to RDF
conversion stuff)
: without referencing a huge quantity of namespaces. I'm starting to
: that it may be better if for a very complex RDF system, one created
a single
: namespace that includes synonyms (using "isDefinedBy" and
: properties) for all of the separate namespaces and
: therein that one uses.

RDF already has a generic seeAlso. But this is a fair point

What would be nice, instead of embedding mappings ahead of time (you
can't possibly guess all the mappings ahead of time), is given two
schemas, a facility to create a third schema later on that posits
mappings between the two. Sounds like a use case for out of document
XLink processing. The number of such equivalence types may be small
enough to get them into RDFS before it goes recommendation...

Having a third schema to bind terms between two other schemas would
would allow traversal all *across* hierarchies (this is also known as
hyperlinking :). You could traverse across a series of such links to
determine equivalent terms in-band. I guess you can call this out of
document schema binding Metalinking.

Bill de hÓra

Version: PGP 7.0

Received on Monday, 11 December 2000 16:08:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:27 UTC