- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 23:46:26 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
[Seth Russell] > I totally agree, and thanks for saying it ! > > And while we're at it why not just leave the old 'rdf:about' alone for > people who like built-in properties in their systems and make up a new > property name ... call it something obvious ... like for instance 'uri'. > > And while were at that, why not invent another useful property ... something > to mean 'preferred human friendly name' ... this would be like a cyc > constant, a kif term, or a rdf:label. The thing that is different between > it and rdf:about (aside from the fact that it would be human user friendly) > is that it can change (be renamed) from time to time and from system to > system. But in any given system at any given time it would be unique. For > a moment let's just call this new term ':named'. Nodes so named internally > would be tied to URI like this: > > [:uri <http://foo/#Dog>; > :named "Doggie"]. > > We could say that in XML\RDF with: > > <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://foo/#Dog"> > <:named>Doggie</:named> > </rdf:Description> > Better watch out ... you'll have Topic Maps before you know it! After these name machinations, all you need are scopes and you're just about there. Cheers, Tom P
Received on Sunday, 7 April 2002 23:41:46 UTC