W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2003

Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:00:49 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030801130049.GG18215@w3.org>

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-06-18 14:18-0400]
> From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:50:29 -0400
> 
> > * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-05-25 07:46-0400]
> > > From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> > > Subject: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)
> > > Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 05:30:22 -0400
> > > 
> > > > Brian and I are discussing ways of clarifying the RDFS doc to 
> > > > close issue pfps-11, 'rdfs:comment implies entailments'.
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-11
> > > > 
> > > > raised: 
> > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0145.html
> > > > 
> > > > summary:
> > > > [[
> > > > We agree that the schema document uses the same form of words for 
> > > > specifying, for example, rdf:type for which there are semantic conditions 
> > > > expressed in the model theory document, and say rdfs:comment for which no 
> > > > (or very much weaker) semantic conditions are expressed in the model theory 
> > > > document.
> > > > 
> > > > You are concerned that this might mislead a reader into thinking that there 
> > > > are model theoretic consequences that are not specified in the semantics 
> > > > document as illustrated in the Cretan example given above.
> > > > ]]
> > > > 
> > > > We propose the adddition of a clarifying sentence to 
> > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_comment in the main paragraph concerning
> > > > rdfs:comment.
> > > > 
> > > > After 'Since RDF vocabularies are expressed as RDF graphs,
> > > > vocabularies defined in other namespaces may be used to provide
> > > > richer documentation.'
> > > > ...add: 'Note that there are no model-theoretic consequences entailed by 
> > > > any assertions represented in the value of the rdfs:comment.'
> > > > 
> > > > Dan
> > > 
> > > This response does not satisfactorily address even the summary of my
> > > comment.  How can it, as the summary uses rdfs:commment as only an example
> > > of where the RDF Semantics document goes beyond the RDF semantics?  Other
> > > examples include rdfs:label, rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:List, rdf:Alt,
> > > rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object, and rdfs:isDefinedBy.
> > > I note that recent changes to the RDF semantics have added rdfs:Datatype to
> > > this category.  There may also be others - with so many examples, it is
> > > entirely possible that I have missed some.
> > > 
> > > A solution to the general problem of the RDF Schema document promising more
> > > than is delivered is needed, not just a solution to one example of the
> > > problem.
> > 
> > Peter,
> > 
> > re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0233.html
> > 
> > Thanks for your comments on our suggested closure of this issue. I have an 
> > action from RDFCore's June 6th meeting[1] to ask whether there are specific 
> > textual changes to the RDFS document that you would prefer. If you could offer 
> > some suggestions, perhaps we can find a way of closing this issue.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Dan
> > 
> > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0067.html
> 
> Well, the most recent version of the RDF Schema document that I have access
> to is the last-call version.  I am not particularly interested in supplying
> wording changes for an out-of-date version of the document.  If you want
> some suggestions send me the current version of the document.

Peter,

re http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-11

I believe the current editors copy of RDF Schema is up to date with all
our Last Call issues and other substantive editorial changes, with the 
exception of this issue, pfps-11 "rdfs:comment implies entailments". We
currently have no proposal on the table for closing this issue; your
editorial suggestions on this matter would be very welcome.

Editor's working copy: 
	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/

It is a while since this was initially raised, and the Semantics
document has gone through various edits. Is it possible that your
concern has been addressed in that document, and that we could wrap up
pfps-11 through adding an appropriate cross-reference to Semantics?

Regarding the related issue (it was raised in the same thread) "Lists 
are not well formed", the rdf:List and related vocabulary has been 
re-described using a form of words based on our agreement in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0277.html
new text is now in section 5.2 RDF Collections, starting at:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/#ch_collectionvocab
If you could take a look at this I'd be grateful.

cheers,

Dan
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 09:00:49 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:31 EDT