 |
 |
> From [log in to unmask] Thu Oct 18 12:11 MET 2001 > content-class: urn:content-classes:message > MIME-Version: 1.0 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4712.0 > Thread-Topic: Re: DC-ARCHITECTURE Digest - 16 Oct 2001 to 17 Oct 2001 > (#2001-55 ) > Thread-Index: AcFXu/xly8A+uF1sQN2aOfBiCa06oQAAI6DQ > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 06:10:52 -0400 > From: Carl Lagoze <[log in to unmask]> > Subject: Re: DC-ARCHITECTURE Digest - 16 Oct 2001 to 17 Oct 2001 (#2001-55 > ) > To: [log in to unmask] > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by scarlett.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE id MAA00999 > > I'm uncomfortable with the notion of RDFS as the "canonical schema". > Usually the notion of canonical implies full information - e.g., there > are other forms of expression that may be lossy but the canonical one is > most expressive. RDFS, however, is not a fully expressive schema > language, limited to types of relationships and not fully expressing > data constraints. We need to consider whether this is relevant before > canonicalizing the RDFS. > > In sum, I agree with Aaron (and Andy, Simon, etc.) > > Carl > Dear Carl, for me the last word in Rachels statement is the important one "at present". Stressing that point i agree with Rachels and Toms view - You pointed to some desirables. We will find even more such in the future - i'm sure.... Cheers rs