- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:47:17 -0400
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Pat Hayes wrote:
> But I had the distinct impression that this option was ruled out at
> the Amsterdam F2F on the grounds that any solution that involved
> "lots of little files" wasn't acceptable. That was late on the second
> day, and things were a little chaotic, but since then I have been
> working on the assumption that we have to find some other way to do
> it. If that assumption is wrong, maybe someone else who was at the
> meeting can correct my memory.
>
Yes, I objected to the requirement that an ontology be published in _at
least_ 2 files (this is very likely to cause real world confusion, and a
host of other usability problems).
If we need something like a file of 'dark triples' then why not allow:
<rdf:RDF>
...light stuff here ...
<rdf:RDF>
... dark stuff here...
</rdf:RDF>
... light stuff here...
</rdf:RDF>
or
<rdf:RDF>
...light stuff here ...
<rdf:dark>
... dark stuff here...
</rdf:dark>
... light stuff here...
</rdf:RDF>
or else I am willing to consider 'dark namespaces' if embedded <rdf:RDF>
will itself be a disaster.
Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 14:51:11 UTC