RE: Revised draft of CBD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext John Black [mailto:JohnBlack@deltek.com]
> Sent: 18 October, 2004 14:50
> To: Stickler Patrick (Nokia-TP-MSW/Tampere); otto@math.fu-berlin.de
> Cc: eric@w3.org; pfps@research.bell-labs.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revised draft of CBD
> 
> 
> > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> > Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 2:13 AM
> 
> 
> > How or where various commonly used forms of description could
> > be documented and presented as a whole is an open question.
> > 
> > I would love to see either the DA WG or the SW BP WG produce
> > a non-normative advisory document along those lines, but
> > something less formal, done as a collaboration of interested
> > parties, would be good too.
> 
> I am attempting to build a list of these forms on my Wiki
> http://kashori.com/wikiPim/BoundedDescriptions
> I have added pointers to all the recent species mentioned recently
> but have not yet had time to add all the pages.
> 
> The selection criteria is something like this: 
> 
> What is the smallest, most valuable, denotative content that 
> could be returned by WWW processes in response to a URI that is 
> also used as a vocabulary term in Semantic Web activities.

It need not be limited to vocabulary terms (unless that is specifically
your focus) but rather, about any arbitrary resource, for any
otherwise unrecognized URI.

Patrick


> 
> John Black
> 
> 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Patrick
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Monday, 18 October 2004 14:16:03 UTC