W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

Re: RDF Schema work-in-progress, URL

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:18:18 -0500
Message-ID: <3BB0922A.7E54E59A@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan Brickley wrote:
[...]
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/20010913/
[...]
>  - Shortened! The old, outdated, scope section has been cut; the text may
>    be useful for the forthcoming Primer, and new scoping text, for example
>    anticipating future Web Ontology language work, may need adding.

I don't really understand how this sort of RDFS spec fits into
our present work. Isn't it completely subsumed by
sections 4 and 5 of the model theory spec and the primer-to-be?

  http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF%20MT-currentdraft.html

Hmm... I guess neither of those is home to rdfs:label nor rdfs:comment.
nor rdfs:seeAlso rdfs:isDefinedBy (how is it that those
are "core properties"?)

If we're going to stick to the idea of an editorial revision
of RDF 1.0, the RDFS sections of the MT can't go in there.
But maybe it's not worth doing separate RDF 1.0-second-edition
and RDFS-to-REC processes; maybe it's easiest to just
do one big set of specs.

Anyway... I don't think the RDFS spec should maintain its
present form. I suggest it should be about 3 pages:
just give each of the terms in the vocabulary and
the rules (ala the MT spec) that define them.
Leave all the examples and fluffy prose to the primer(s).

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2001 10:18:21 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:49 EDT