W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: more tidying references: RDF Schema?

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:02:31 +0100
Message-ID: <42E5FC27.2010601@hp.com>
To: andy.seaborne@hp.com
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> 
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 13:35 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>>       link is neither local, part, informative, nor normative:
>>>>       [<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#nil>]
>>>>       "http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_nil"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       link is neither local, part, informative, nor normative:
>>>>       [<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>]
>>>>       "http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_type"
>>>>
>>>>I don't understand why there are links to rdf-schema.
>>>
>>>I can explain the schema links: they are links for constants used in SPARQL. 
>>>rdf:nil and rdf:type.
>>>
>>>RDF Collections are in rdf:nil is in RDF schema and SPARQL has list syntax to 
>>>agree with that and mentions rdf:nil (i.e the rdf collection "()")
>>>
>>>Similarly for "a" - rq23 says it stands for rdf:type and links to that URI.
>>>
>>>So a RDF schema link should be normative (or remove the links and leave the 
>>>bytes for the URI not in a <a> but that woudl be shame).
>>
>>
>>Though rdf:nil and rdf:type are discussed in the RDF Schema spec,
>>they're also discussed, fairly definitively, in [RDF-MT], and
>>we already have a normative reference there. I don't like giving
>>the impression that SPARQL depends on RDF Schema.
>>
>>For rdf:nil, let's use 3.3.3 RDF collections
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#collections
>>and for rdf:type, let's use 3.1 RDF Interpretations
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFINTERP
> 
> 
> Agreed - I'll make that change in my next pass.  Where the URI is excplitly in 
> the text I will not put a link (its' into the middle of 
> 1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#) and link as you suggest.
> 
> 	Andy

Changes for v1.441:

1/ Link first use of "RDF Collections" in 2.8/RDF Collections to
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#collections

2/ Removed link for rdf:nil URI (going to the true value of rdf:nil does not 
yield human readable material - you get the RDF/XML for RDF).

3/ Removed link for rdf:type URI

I didn't see the need to a link to 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#RDFINTERP as the text does not 
attempt to explain rdf:type at all.

	Andy
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 09:02:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT