W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2003

RE: [Fwd: RDFCore 2nd last call announcement]

From: Hammond, Tony (ELSLON) <T.Hammond@elsevier.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:45:29 +0100
Message-ID: <54A600C436EA694581B93E4BD4D4788A06B73D11@elslonexc004.eslo.co.uk>
To: 'Brian McBride' <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org

Hi Brian:

> I'd suggest that RDF schemas are useful, but not mandatory, so the lack 
> of one for PRISM does not render it unsuitable for reference in the

I take your point - I guess I was just thinking about best practice and the
signals being sent out (especially by flagging it as an example application
in the Primer). I might have been confusing RDF with the Semantic Web. ;) My
concern was really that by making use of a term set without a schema we then
appear to have lost machine processability and hence automation.

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2003 06:50:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:45 UTC