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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 10:00:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030801.100011.73331007.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:00:49 -0400

> * 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

[...]

> > > > 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 wording changes for an out-of-date version of the document.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?

No, my concerns have not yet been addressed.  

For example, the wording about rdf:Statement indicates that rdf:Statement
is the class of RDF statements, which are made by RDF triples.  This goes
far, far beyond what rdf:Statement actually provides.

Here is some proposed text

5.3.1 rdf:Statement

rdf:Statement is an instance of rdfs:Class.

rdf:Statement is the domain of the properties rdf:predicate, rdf:subject
and rdf:object.  Different individual rdf:Statement instances may have the
same values for their rdf:predicate, rdf:subject and rdf:object properties.

5.3.2 rdf:subject

A triple of the form
	S rdf:subject R .
states that the rdf:subject of S is R.

The rdfs:domain of rdf:subject is rdf:Statement.  The rdfs:range of
rdf:subject is rdfs:Resource.

[and so on]

Other changes

5.4.2 rdfs:isDefinedBy

... that may be used to indicate ...

A triple of the form 
	S rdfs:isDefinedBy O .
states that the some aspect of the resource O might provide defining
information about S.



> 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.

This looks much better, except the stuff about L rdf:rest rdf:nil implying
that L ``has one item''.  It would be much better to say that this means
that the rest-of-list of L is empty.

> cheers,
> 
> Dan

peter
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 10:00:21 EDT

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