Re: rdfs:seeAlso Re: Semantic E-mail

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:41:03 +0100, Richard Newman
<r.newman@reading.ac.uk> wrote:
> It tells a crawler "get this file for more information about this
> resource".
> So, for instance data that seems to make sense.
> 
> For the original suggested usage ("promote partial understanding by
> usage of rdfs:seeAlso in its schema") --- i.e. using seeAlso in an
> ontology, presumably as an aid to translation tools --- I'm less sure.
> 
> An ontology itself could have a seeAlso link to another RDF file
> containing versioning or Dublin Core meta-data; that seems like a
> reasonable use, separating things out.

RDF Schema:
"rdfs:seeAlso is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to indicate
a resource that might provide additional information about the subject
resource", which applied to my construct:

<rdf:Property rdf:about="http://NEW/#messageid" rdfs:label="messageId"
rdfs:comment="The unique Message-Id">
    <rdfs:seeAlso
rdf:resource="http://xmlns.filsa.org/xmlns.filsa.net/emir/0.2/#messageid"/>
</rdf:Property>

Would state that
<http://xmlns.filsa.org/xmlns.filsa.net/emir/0.2/#messageid> provide
additional information about the just defined rdf:Property.

But how can I interpret the recommendation doesn't count; all it
counts is the consensus on how a vocabulary can be constructed
referring similar properties in other vocabularies rather than using
them directly (mixing vocabularies) in order to promote partial
understanding.

I would like to mix vocabularies, but I won't know how to choose them
-- I mean I would choose elements which semantics satisfies my needs,
but how can I know that I'm not then `speaking' a dead language (ex. a
forgotten draft, etc)?

There is no popularity engine for schemas, and hoping that in the
future there will be servers that will provide the vocabulary
equivalence information is like hoping for link servers to happen.

That's why I want to include in my vocabulary equivalence statements,
I was hoping that it can be done in RDF Schema only, if there is not a
solution (rdf:seeAlso) I'll climb the next step to OWL.

I really don't know what would be the best approach.

Thank you,
-- 
Laurian Gridinoc
Chief Developer
GRAPEFRUIT DESIGN
www.gd.ro

Received on Saturday, 10 July 2004 07:16:55 UTC