- From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:44:28 -0000
- To: Bill de hÓra <dehora@acm.org>
- Cc: "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>, "Ora Lassila" <daml@lassila.org>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> 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. That's more or less what I had in mind. It would be nice if from a multitude of Schemas you could just generate your own Schema...a job for XSLT I suppose. > Sounds like a use case for out of document XLink processing. I don't think so: using properties of RDF means that they can be understood by RDF processors, whereas XLink doesn't even have a way of including the linked document into the refering documents parse tree (see Eve Maler's current thread on xml-dev). > The number of such equivalence types may be small > enough to get them into RDFS before it goes recommendation... Ah, if you mean including them as properties in RDF-S, then that would work. Actually, that's a very good idea [RDFS WG, are you watching?] :-) Kindest Regards, Sean B. Palmer http://infomesh.net/swdemo/#demo http://www.mysterylights.com/sbp/ http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF] "Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics." - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 11:46:20 UTC