Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Gavin Thomas Nicol > > > RDF schemas are intended to complement not replace XML schemas. An RDF > > schema defines a semantic hierarchy, or network, of element names. The URI > > created by concatenating the namespace URI to the element name > > identifies an RDF Schema Class to which the instance belongs, or may > > identifiy an RDF Schema Property. > > And hence they are broken. [well known example regarding DNS entries changing ownership snipped ...] [shrug] Ok so the semantic web is broken because the web itself is broken. On the other hand natural language is broken, and heiroglyphics are broken because the meaning of words change and languages themselves come and go, and records get destroyed and... I suppose the answer is to either: a) use a persistant URL http://www.purl.org b) figure out a better DNS/URL mechanism. Just because a vocabulary exists, or exists this moment, doesn't mean that it is the vocabulary you wish to use for documents you intend to archive. If you are concerned with such problems, you may wish to restrict your usage of schemas to those published by well known organizations, e.g. nlm.nih.gov or whatever you trust as a) an organization that defines the 'true' vocabulary and b) is going to stay around I'm not trying to suggest that RDF or RDF Schemas somehow magically solve the world's problems. All I'm trying to do is give a few basics about RDF and RDF Schemas and how they relate to semantic networks and ultimately the semantic web as I see it. Jonathan Borden The Open Healthcare Group http://www.openhealth.org
|
