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

Re: refining closure text for rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Date: 10 Jun 2002 18:17:16 -0500
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1023751037.15177.174.camel@birch>

On Mon, 2002-06-10 at 12:28, Graham Klyne wrote:
> 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).
> ]]

Yes. And I'm further suggesting that we formally write this concept down
so that others can use in their descriptions (e.g.):

so to be clear, the suggestion is to add:

<rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Schema">
  <rdfs:label>RDF Schema</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>An RDF document containing defining information about
some RDF vocabulary (i.e. about some RDF properties and
classes)</rdfs:comment>
</rdfs:Class>

and change:

<rdf:Property ID="isDefinedBy">
  <rdf:type
resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/>
  <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#seeAlso"/> 
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">isDefinedBy</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">esD&#233;finiPar</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>Indicates a resource containing and defining the subject
resource.</rdfs:comment>
  <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Resource"/>
  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Resource"/>
</rdf:Property>

-- ala http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema

to...

<rdf:Property rdf:ID="isDefinedBy">
  <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#seeAlso"/> 
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">isDefinedBy</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">esD&#233;finiPar</rdfs:label>
  <rdfs:comment>Indicates a resource containing and defining the subject
resource.</rdfs:comment>  
  <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Schema"/>
  <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Resource"/>
</rdf:Property>

<!-- note I'd suggest clarifying the comment -->

or is this level of formalism the part you're uncomfortable with?  

> 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.).

I absolutely agree. I don't mean to suggest otherwise.

-- 
eric miller                              http://www.w3.org/people/em/
semantic web activity lead               http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
w3c world wide web consortium            http://www.w3.org/
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 18:14:51 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:12 EDT