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

Re: refining closure text for rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:39:02 +0300
To: ext Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B92B83C6.16784%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2002-06-11 2:17, "ext Eric Miller" <em@w3.org> wrote:

> 
> 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>

I'm in favor of this.

> 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"/>

I'm strongly opposed to this.

Firstly, this is a narrower definition as defined in M&S (and I'm
not convinced that this narrower definition was what M&S was
intended to say) and that narrower definition is contrary to
present usage based on the broader M&S definition -- i.e. things
will break (see Aaron's recent post of examples).

Secondly, given the definition of the rdfs:Schema class, it is
unneccesary, since one may clearly express that the defining
resource is an RDF schema.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 04:12:04 EDT

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