- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 09:02:06 -0500
- To: Victor Lindesay <victor@schemaweb.info>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Victor Lindesay wrote:
> Charles:
>
>>This would be give or take quite a few. Thinking for 3 minutes:
>>
>
> Give us a chance Charles, SchemaWeb has only been going for a few weeks.
> As for coverage, I would reckon that SchemaWeb contains a very
> significant proportion of all schemas and ontologies published on the
> web in RDF/XML.
>
On the one hand, this is fair comment; compilation takes a while. And
this compilation is an enormously valuable activity ("is there a
vocabulary for X" belongs right up there in a list of RDF FAQs).
On the other hand, your original response *did* say "all known
vocabularies (give or take a few)", which is a pretty substantial claim
when you think about it. For one thing, it suggests that you have a
pretty good picture of the extent of "all known vocabularies", and so
can say that only a few are missing, right? (Of course, I suppose you
can say that if you don't know about them, then they aren't "known"!) In
this connection, I'd note that SchemaWeb doesn't seem to mention several
RDF vocabularies discussed in the RDF Primer (CC/PP being one of them),
and so these additional vocabularies are "known" according to at least
one definition! BTW: Do your criteria for inclusion require that the
schema be physically located in your repository, or can it be located
elsewhere?
--Frank
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 09:02:03 UTC