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

Re: refining closure text for rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 18:28:19 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020610182127.03fa4350@joy.songbird.com>
To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 11:01 AM 6/10/02 -0500, Eric Miller wrote:
>A couple of open issues come to mind...
>
>- do we formally give a name to a schema resource rather than let
>different communities define them (this request has surfaced from the DC
>community working on Registries).  As was mentioned on the telecon, this
>approach may be useful for clarifying the relationship between rdf
>Schemas and Web Ontologies (e.g. rdfs:Schema subclassof web:Ontology)
>
>my suggestion would be 'yes'
>
>- do we formalize the range rdfs:isDefinedBy to be one of these schema
>resources

I'm a little uncomfortable with what this might be saying, but I'd be happy 
if we can describe the schema resource referenced by rdfs:isDefinedBy as:

[[
An RDF document containing defining information about some RDF vocabulary 
(i.e. about some RDF properties and classes).
]]

What I want to avoid doing here is (a) creating an idea that a schema is 
somehow apart from the wider body of RDF data, and (b) that a schema 
contains only statements based on the RDFS-defined vocabulary (rdfs:range, 
rdfs:domain, etc.).

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 13:15:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:11 EDT