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

Re: Draft rdf.rdf

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 23:26:54 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001a02bb58d63ffd40@[10.0.1.2]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>Jos De_Roo wrote:
>>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).
>
>That looks plausible.  Pat?

My recollection is that we changed this from 
Property to Resource a while ago, for some reason 
that now escapes me.

I have no objection to either.

>Brian
>
>>
>>--
>>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.


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 8 August 2003 00:25:37 EDT

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