- From: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
- Date: 20 Oct 2000 19:59:09 +0200
- To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'Arnold deVos'" <adv@langdale.com.au>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, rdf@uxn.nu
"McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> writes: > A good question. I think the current situation is as you say > that model is not part of the the RDF Model. I think of the RDF as building blocks for creating new concepts. The RDFS schema is an important extension to RDF and itself described in RDF. But that is only the beginning. There will (hopefully) be countless more schemas, adding new concepts in every conceivable domain. I have mentioned (in the Wraf mailinglist) the areas of modelling trust, preferences, versioning, presentation, queries and more. Each of them introduce new concepts. Every statement exists in a context. You want to know who the stater is and when it was stated. A document with RDF in XML serialization can be viewd as a unity with a common source and created in the same time. We only have to create the class Model and make it a subClassOf Container. Nothing strange about that. The Model class should be placed in a schema that we all can use in the intrest of higher operability. But there is no need to extend the existing schemas. RDF was built to grow. And grow it will, with lots and lots of new schemas. The new classes currently used in Wraf are: wraf:Service - Holds data about _your_ session with the server wraf:Interface - The gateway to accessing models, used by the service wraf:Model - A collection of statements wraf:Selection - A collection of resources, returned from a query More to come later... The Second alpha will be announced within a few days. -- / Jonas Liljegren The Wraf project http://www.uxn.nu/wraf/ Sponsored by http://www.rit.se/
Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 14:00:01 UTC