- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:17:26 +0000
- To: "Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net>
- Cc: "RDF-IG" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Seth, I may be missing something here, but... I think it was the RDF of the _compilation_ that interested me. E.g. a single file that I might point an RDF engine at and have it pull in the various bits of information, including the compilation annotations. ... I've taken another look at your dictionary, and realize I was missing something. In this case, a "compilation" would be a simple collection (rdf:Bag?) of schema URIs. Not such a big deal, I agree. #g At 08:09 AM 3/14/01 -0800, Seth Russell wrote: >From: "Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org> > >RE: http://robustai.net/swag/dictionary.html > > > I think can imagine some interesting things to try on this... is the > > dictionary document available in RDF? > >Hmmm ... > >What you see as the dictionary is the bot's internal view of what is already >external RDF. So one answer to your question is, "Yes", you already have >the RDF of the schemas .. if the bot were to output this view in RDF, it >should look almost exactly like the schema documents it read to produce the >dictionary (which you already have). Now it could output RDF that was all >contained in one namespace ... but would you want that? > >What I think it should output for the purposes you probably propose is just >a tab delimited file of its database. Would that be helpful for the things >you want to try? > >Seth ------------ Graham Klyne (GK@ACM.ORG)
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 15:47:20 UTC