Re: RDF Schema abstract

On 28 November 2013 05:00, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> To me, the idea that entities and relationships were invented by Peter Chen in 1958 is a bit like saying that Bill Gates invented numbers. But more seriously, see below
>
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote:
>
>> I'm doing the final changes on the RDF Schema draft. I wanted to run one thing first by the WG, namely the one-sentence abstract of what RDF Schema is.
>>
>> One option is to take the characterization given in the Semantics document:
>>
>>  RDF Schema extends RDF to a larger vocabulary with more
>>  complex semantic constraints.
>>
>> However, I think using the term "vocabulary" in this way will confuse people with a data-modelling background. Taking a data-modelling perspective RDF Schema should probably be seen as a Enhanced Entity Relationship data-modelling language [1]. I therefore propose the following abstract:
>>
>>  RDF Schema provides a data-modelling vocabulary for RDF data.
>
> I know this says "a" rather than "the", but its being in the spec surely suggests that RDFS is somehow singled out as being the correct or primary or basic data-modelling vocabulary, which is potentially misleading. Suggest a slight modification along these lines:
>
>> RDF Schema provides a simple data-modelling vocabulary for RDF data. Other publications, including SKOS [ ] and the W3C Recommendation OWL2 [ ], define more elaborate data models which extend RDFS in various ways.

The current REC http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ says

"This specification does not attempt to enumerate all the possible
forms of vocabulary description that are useful for representing the
meaning of RDF classes and properties. Instead, the RDF vocabulary
description strategy is to acknowledge that there are many techniques
through which the meaning of classes and properties can be described.
Richer vocabulary or 'ontology' languages such as DAML+OIL, W3C's
[OWL] language, inference rule languages and other formalisms (for
example temporal logics) will each contribute to our ability to
capture meaningful generalizations about data in the Web. RDF
vocabulary designers can create and deploy Semantic Web applications
using the RDF vocabulary description language 1.0 facilities, while
exploring richer vocabulary description languages that share this
general approach."

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html
doesn't have this.

The original point of RDFS was to do provide an approach that could be
in some sense compatible with more ambitious alternate efforts.

Typo "provides a data-mdelling vocabulary" -> "provides a
data-modelling vocabulary"

I can't very well complain as I've not had much time to contribute
here! But just wanted to note that "a" rather than "the" is in the
spirit of RDFS. We probably don't need a reference to DAML+OIL.

I should also note that schema.org's very widely used vocabulary uses
custom type/property associations ('rangeIncludes', 'domainIncludes');
imho it is important that RDFS continue to provide a foundation for
alternate ways of describing RDF classes and properties.

Dan

ps. re ER and RDF, there was a schema-vs-schema crisis meeting some
years ago, in which RDF and XML agreed to disagree. The outcome was
this report, http://www.w3.org/TR/schema-arch#background which noted
"RDF is a W3C recommendation which already employs this layered
approach. RDF is a member of the Entity-Relationship modelling family
in which data structured as directed labelled graphs can be exchanged
via XML documents using a specific XML grammar;" (signatories
including Peter Chen, Bootstrap Alliance)


>> Feedback appreciated.
>>
>> Guus
>>
>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_entity%E2%80%93relationship_model
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 08:52:47 UTC