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

Re: Draft rdf.rdf

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 22:44:15 +0200
To: swick@w3.org
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF64FD79A9.8E409F5B-ONC1256D7A.00707BA0-C1256D7A.0071EDA6@agfa.be>


Right, I also believe that rdf.rdf is correct.
I checked it with Cwm and Jena and compared it
with what we assumed and found one difference
which is
  rdf:predicate rdfs:range rdf:Property .
where we had
  rdf:predicate rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .
which we took from the "RDFS axiomatic triples" table
in the "RDF Semantics Editors Draft July 31"
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#rdfs_interp
I propose that the more precise triple is in the MT
(both the table and the LBase translation).

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                                        
                      "Ralph R. Swick"                                                                                                  
                      <swick@w3.org>            To:       Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>                                           
                      Sent by:                  cc:       rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>                                              
                      w3c-rdfcore-wg-req        Subject:  Re: Draft rdf.rdf                                                             
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                        
                      2003-08-06 08:25                                                                                                  
                      PM                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                        





At 11:52 AM 8/6/2003 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>I have attached such a draft.

Looks good, Brian.   (I didn't review it for completeness.)

>  It is a cut down version of rdfs.rdf with:
>
>  - a new comment inserted to describe the document

Why not put that text inside a dc:description property?

>It uses only syntax defined in M&S, specifically, xml:base is not used.
Ralph considered this important, at least until we get to rec.

Yes, since you want to keep the original namespace name
I feel that it would be inappropriate to use new syntax in any
RDF content at that namespace URI until at least Proposed Rec.

>Differences from the document at currently at the rdf namespace URI are:
>
>  - labels are included for all terms
>  - the comments are consistent with those used in RDFS.rdf and the
current specs
>  - an Owl ontology element has been added
>  - the list vocabulary rdf:List, rdf:nil, rdf:first and rdf:rest has been
added
>  - the rdf:XMLLiteral class has been added.
>  - domain and ranges for rdf:value are specified for all properties
>  - there is an rdfs:subClassOf property for all classes
>  - there is an rdfs:isDefinedBy property for all terms

All good things to have added.  We didn't do it in the original
content as RDFS wasn't available to us at the time.

Thanks very much for doing this task, Brian.
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 16:44:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:35 EDT