Re: Asunto: Re: [www-rdf-interest] <none>

We've been talking a little about this and a related issue - how
to describe the relationships between vocabularies - on IRC:

You might like to add to the wiki page on this topic:



On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 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 <>
> >To: Jeroen Budts <>
> >Cc:
> >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 So is it valid then to declare a prefix,
> >>by example xfn, for the namespace 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

Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 09:13:42 UTC