- From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:11:51 +0000 (GMT)
- To: frozados@fibertel.com.ar
- Cc: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Jeroen Budts <jeroen@lightyear.be>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
We've been talking a little about this and a related issue - how to describe the relationships between vocabularies - on IRC: http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2004/01/07/2004-01-07.html#1073488463.663254 http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/rdfig/2004-01-07#T15-14-58 You might like to add to the wiki page on this topic: http://esw.w3.org/topic/BuildOrBuyTerms cheers Libby On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 frozados@fibertel.com.ar wrote: > Hello. I think the same as Charles. If everyone create his own schema, maybe > the semantic web crash or enter in a collapse, because no-one will comunicate > with other schemas. Maybe, we have to work whith existing schemas and not > to invent new ones. > > Charles, i send you a paper. Can you tell me what do you think?. > > thanks, > federico > > >-- Mensaje original -- > >Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:04:20 -0500 (EST) > >From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> > >To: Jeroen Budts <jeroen@lightyear.be> > >Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org > >Subject: Re: [www-rdf-interest] <none> > > > > > > > >On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Jeroen Budts wrote: > >>I'm still working on my FOAF file and have another question. To give > >>some extra information about the persons I know (foaf:knows) I want to > >>add XFN [1]. XFN describes some values which can be used in the @rel > >>attribute of XHTML elements. I know the rel attribute, as XFN uses it, > >>is http://gmpg.org/xfn/1#rel. So is it valid then to declare a prefix, > >>by example xfn, for the namespace http://gmpg.org/xfn/1 and use > >>xfn:rel as a property for a foaf:Person? > > > >Yes, I think you can do this. It seems to be what the document you referred > >to suggests in its last paragraph. (Assuming that it is a sensible use > of > >the > >rel property :-) > > > >An interesting problem is whether to adapt something like this, or to > >re-define it yourself. If you take the former appraoch then you either > don't > >write a schema, so people can't find what you did, or you have the > >possibility that several people will each write a schema for a term whose > >URI > >they don't own, and there may be conflicting statements. > > > >If you make up your own version, we end up with a million schemas which > are > >likely to have ppor interoperability - even with the core elements of dublin > >core we can see that establishing interoperability among a large group > of > >humans is difficult. If they all invent their own somewhat nuanced terms > >and > >claim they are "similarTo" something else, we will have a very fuzzy semantic > >web. That may be a good thing of course - the knowledge we try to represent > >is, except in a few cases, somewhat fuzzy itself. > > > >Cheers > > > >Chaals > > > > > ________________________________________ > FiberTel, el nombre de la banda ancha http://www.fibertel.com.ar > > >
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 09:13:42 UTC