- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:06:09 -0000
- 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>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 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 think : that it may be better if for a very complex RDF system, one created a single : namespace that includes synonyms (using "isDefinedBy" and "equivalentTo" : properties) for all of the separate namespaces and properties/classes : therein that one uses. RDF already has a generic seeAlso. But this is a fair point nonetheless. 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 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 7.0 iQA/AwUBOjVBn+aWiFwg2CH4EQI7DACgn+PNcba+oYhd2fjU+XNxxlqUqhEAoPCt XjLTjj00csEVCkUbcL3gyyFr =/UcF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 11 December 2000 16:08:44 UTC