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

Re: 2002-06-17#1 re rdfms-seq-representation in RDFS

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 22 Nov 2002 11:04:26 -0600
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1037984667.28797.49.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 09:30, Dan Brickley wrote:
> 2002-06-17#1  danbri  Update RDFS spec to reflect resolution of
>                       rdfms-seq-representation
> With the addition of the lists vocabulary,

pointer please? perhaps this?

I have an action to do a test case about rdfs:contains or some such,
and I think it's best to write test cases and review sections
of the spec at the same time...

"The rdfs:Container class is a super-class of the RDF Container
classes, ie. rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq, rdf:Alt."

hmm... better to say that formally, in n-triples, right there?
Perhaps not; but we do say it formally, yes? yes, checking
with cwm, I see we do.


"This RDF/XML is also available as a separate RDF/XML document
(rdfs-namespace.xml). It is not currently published at the W3C RDF
Schema namespace URI."

why not? (not critical)

"the 1999 RDF Model and Syntax specification"
add a citation/reference.

% python cwm.py --rdf
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/rdfs-namespace.xml --n3

    rdf:Alt     a :Class;
         :subClassOf :Container .


Odd... I also see...
    rdf:Alt     a :Class;
         :comment "A collection of alternatives.";

er... rdf:Alt is a collection/class of collections of alternatives, no?

Is that comment synchronized with the text of the spec? No...
"The rdf:Alt class represents RDF's 'Alt' container construct, and is a
subclass of rdfs:Container."

Let's please synchronize those. CRITICAL.
The schema spec should cite the relevant section of the syntax
spec, and the rdfs-namespace.xml thingy should point, via
seeAlso or isDefinedBy, to it.

  2.15 Container membership property elements - rdf:li and rdf:_n

My brain feels the need for an example... let's see... we
keep those in the primer... the relevant section seems
to be...

  4.1. Representing Groups of RDF Resources

er... why "Groups" rather than Collections?

If Group is used rather than Collection because Lists
aren't collections, then this figure in the primer is busted:

 Figure 16: An RDF Collection (list structure) 

Let's see... my test case action was from 9 Apr

I think it's

	_:these rdf:_1 _:this.
	_:these rdfs:member _:this.

hmm.... the way you worded the schema spec
"each numbered container membership property has a rdfs:subPropertyOf
relationship to the property rdfs:member" suggests

	rdf:_1 rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member.

hmm... is that in the model theory spec?

yes... seems to be...

  If x is in ICEXT(I(rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty)) then
     <x,I(rdfs:member)> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:subPropertyOf))

  rdf:_1 rdf:type  rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .
  rdf:_2 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .

Jan, is that enough for you to make those two into
real tests? i.e. you wanna help me do the hard part
of "2002-04-19#14 danc  do entailement test case for container with
rdfs:contains" please?

I really should get set up to check the details of
the manifest and all that, but I'm just not there yet.

> I believe this ACTION is
> discharged.

Mostly, yes, but not quite to my satisfaction.
The correspondence between the rdfs:comments and
the text of the spec is CRITICAL, to me, as is
a link from the specification of rdfs:Alt/Seq/Bag
to the syntax spec.

> seealso http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation
> Dan
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 12:04:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC