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

Updating RDF Schema spec.

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:26:54 -0500 (EST)
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0203212053460.14391-100000@tux.w3.org>

RDF Core,

I've finished giving RDF Schema some editorial attention. The spec was
getting pretty unmaintainable so I've slimmed it down somewhat (2/3 former
file size), and cleaned up many of the worst problems, or at least got
things into a state where I think they can be fixed.

My working copy (may change) is at:

	Semantic Web Vocabulary Description: RDF Core Schemas 1.0

	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/Schema/200203	(cvs version 1.6)

(note the new proposed title)

High and lowlights...

I removed most mention of 'constraints', and all the ConstraintResource stuff.
Almost all of the old exampless too since (a) much is now in the Primer,
(b) I don't think they added much. I intend to add a single example scenario
as a theme to run through the document. Probably something close to the
Person/author/Document example from Guha's old MCF spec[1]

The document as you now see it has had lots of text chopped (some of
which might go to the Primer if not there already). It has not been
reorganised greatly yet. The old distinction between 'Schema stuff' and
'Model and Syntax' vocab is greatly reduced (though we still use different
namespaces). A lot of the document now consists of class and property
descriptions; these need putting in a table with discussion following
their introduction.

I removed the Sets and Members figure, since it clashed with the set
theoretic approach of the MT.

As agreed, I've added rdf:member as a superproperty of the container
membership properties.

Most (I believe) of the outstanding decisions are reflected, but I need to
check this against WG meeting minutes.

It is now nearly in a state where it could be reorganised for
presentational purposes. My intention (esp. re the new title) is to
separate two themes: a general approach to vocabulary description for
RDF data, and some specific vocab. It needs to more explicitly set things
up for WebOnt and Rules work to build on.

The datatypes stuff hasn't been added yet. I could do this but right now
RDFS as a spec is metaphorically in pieces on the floor. Might be worth
putting it back together while it's a 6 page spec before adding the new

What else? I've used CSS class of 'todo' (with color: red) at various
points throughout the document to transcribe my red ink comments and
TODOs. This is pretty informal. I'll sync it up with the Issue list asap.

The rdf:Statement, predicate/subject/object vocab needs describing
properly. As does rdf:value. rdf:Literal awaits the datatyping text.

There are a few new phrases, sentences and paragraphs scattered
throughout. Range/Domain (previously 'Constraints') being the main problem
areas I'm trying to improve. In particular I added a chunk there which
belongs up-front in the document. Excerpted here:

	This specification does not attempt to enumerate all the
      possible forms of vocabulary description that are useful for
      representing the meaning of classes and properties in RDF data.
	Instead, the RDF vocabulary description strategy is to
      acknowledge that there are many techniques through which the
      meaning of classes and properties can be indicated, and to
      establish some common practice amongst all such techniques.

	Richer schema or 'ontology' languages such as DAML+OIL, the
      W3C WebOnt WG's OWL, inference rule languages (@@ref) and
      other formalisms (for example temporal logics) will each
      contribute to our ability to capture meaningful
      generalisations about data in the Web. RDF vocabulary
      designers can create and deploy Semantic Web applications
      using the basic RDF Schema 1.0 facilities, while exploring
      richer vocabulary description languages that share this
      general approach.


This is my take on what the old Extensibility section *should* have said,
and on how our work should play with the work of other Semantic Web

Comments/feedback etc welcome. Bear in mind the doc is now in a rough
state, so hold back on the fine-grained proof reading for now. The
references, acknowledgements and RDF/XML appendix for eg haven't been touched.



[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-MCF-XML/

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 21:26:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC