- From: Craig Gannon <craigg@crabacle.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:14:22 +0100
- To: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>, "Tom Croucher" <tom.croucher@sunderland.ac.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 07:14:44 UTC
The commercial arena is currently bereft of tooling to take uniquely qualified concepts up through Schema and into ontology modelling technologies. - In practice this needs both a top-down and bottom-up approach to modelling in order to validate the concepts involved - ideally this would provide the ability to round trip within the metadata stack. I have recently encountered the concept of: Extending Schema to include the 'RDF triples' (i.e. reference out to a namespace that contains RDF properties but not RDF documents themselves). On the face of it this sounds a reasonable idea but it also worries me as: A) I am aware that there is current discussion within the semantic web community to maintain a disjoint between content and metadata. Surely applying RDF within Schema is contradictory to this convention? B) RDF was designed as a solution for a specific problem space - giving processes and elements context and meaning - Schema wasn't designed for this (if it was there wouldn't be RDF); C) It prevents adopting newer standards and technologies building upon RDF; D) It makes the schema too fat and cludgy; E) Schema is an implementation technology, RDF is a modelling technology. I would welcome your views and thoughts. Regards Craig Gannon http://www.crabacle.co.uk Tel: +44 (0) 7711 822 910
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 07:14:44 UTC