- From: Thomas B. Passin <tpassin@comcast.net>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 17:08:33 -0400
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Jon Hanna wrote:
> Hopefully this is the last time I'll mention this, because I'm aware of
> quite a few flaws in it, but I made a stab at this idea at
> http://www.hackcraft.net/rep/rep.xml (go to
> http://www.hackcraft.net/rep/rep.html if your browser doesn't do XSLT).
>
Hmm, looks like you and I are looking at this matter in very similar
ways, except that I would like to see just a few terms ("predicates")
standardized at the rdf level, while you offer a more elaborate schema
that covers a wider range of relationships. I think there is a real
place for a schema like this, but I don't think it belongs in the basic
rdf Rec per se.
>>Of course, I haven't yet read the "Web Proper Names: Naming
>>Referents on
>>the Web" paper
>
>
> Please do. Either you'll agree with me and add another voice to my view
> of it, or you'll disagree with me and hopefully help me see the error of
> my ways (the authors of the paper have tried, but neither of us have
> budged much so far).
>
I shall, but can't just now.
Cheers,
Tom P
--
Thomas B. Passin
Explorer's Guide to the Semantic Web (Manning Books)
http://www.manning.com/catalog/view.php?book=passin
Received on Monday, 20 September 2004 21:05:42 UTC