W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: IsDefinedBy [was: "meaningless terms" verbage for Primer]

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 11:15:36 +0200
Message-ID: <006201c2a1bf$081478a0$b29316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


> With regards to isDefinedBy, I think it would be fine for the primer to say 
> nothing about it.  If the WG felt that the primer would be enhanced by a 
> short description, I might suggest something along the lines of the 
> following would describe the WG's decision:
> 
> [[
> It is often useful to indicate in an RDF graph where the definition of a 
> class or a property, or indeed any resource, may be found.  The 
> rdfs:isDefinedBy property may be used for this purpose.  This property may 
> be used to indicate an RDF Schema that describes the resource, however, RDF 
> imposes no constraints on the values this property.  If the resource that 
> is the value of such a property is retrieved from the web, it may be an RDF 
> Schema, but there is no guarantee that it will be.
> ]]

Interestingly, the text in the Vocabulary document would suggest that
any value of rdfs:isDefinedBy is expected to be an RDF schema, since
it is a subPropertyOf rdfs:seeAlso, which is described in the Vocabulary
doc as

"rdfs:seeAlso
The property rdfs:seeAlso is used to indicate a resource that might provide additional RDF information about the subject resource."


Perhaps "RDF" is there by accident? "RDF information" sure sounds like

an RDF Schema to me...



Patrick
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2002 04:20:40 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:52 EDT