- From: Daniel \ <eikeon@eikeon.com>
- Date: 24 Feb 2003 09:51:40 -0500
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Even though it looks like I missed last call...
The following comment pertains to:
RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema
In the process of building http://rdfschema.info/ it has become apparent
that having an rdfs:Schema class defined would be useful. Without the
term defined the semantics that RDF brings to the Web does not extend to
the actual RDF Schema instances. For example, searching for RDF Schema
on the Semantic Web is the same as it is on the Web -- not easier like
the Semantics that the Semantic Web adds is supposed to make it.
Next, having the term defined within RDF Schema vs. other places. Not
having the term defined within RDF Schema:
- leaves no way to formalize the relationship between say an
rdfs:Schema and an owl:Ontology
- results in choices for the term to use for RDF Schema instances
where the choices are not related to a common ground, say an
rdfs:Schema.
- will result in many schema instances simply being of type
rdfs:Resource
--
Daniel Krech, http://eikeon.com/
Redfoot.net, http://redfoot.net/
RDFLib.net, http://rdflib.net/
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 09:51:17 UTC