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

Re: RDFS change: rdfs:comment for rdfs:member versus its rdfs:domain

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:48:58 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Cc: roland@mathematik.uni-osnabrueckchange

This may raise more questions than it answers, but here's a stab for 

Asserts that the object is a member of, or in some sense "belongs to" the 
subject resource.  It is intended to be used as a common relationship 
between containers and all of their members, but is not so restricted and 
may be used with subjects that are not of type rdfrs:Container.

The overall vagueness of this leaves me wondering *why* rdfs:member doesn't 
have a domain of rdfs:Container.

(If this issue is settled by the time this message is received, please 
ignore it.)


At 09:20 01/08/03 -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:

>We say that rdfs:member (the superproperty of rdf:_1, _2 etc) has an
>rdfs:domain of rdfs:Resource, allowing it to be applied to anything
>without implying that thing is a Container.
>I believe the text in
>is perfectly consistent with that. *However* the rdfs:comment for
>rdfs:member says:
>"A member of the subject container."
>This is a bug (thanks to Roland Schwaenz for spotting it). We need a new
>and more non-commital rdfs:comment for this property.
>Creative suggests welcomed. In the absence of inspiration, I propose:
>rdfs:member, "A member of the subject resource."
>Admittedly this doesn't make much sense, but we don't give ourselves a
>great deal of space in our rdfs:label glosses to expand on detail.
>Any objections to running with the above proposal?

Graham Klyne          _________
GK@ninebynine.org  ___|_o_o_o_|_
(nb Helva)       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   @Cliveden, River Thames
Received on Sunday, 10 August 2003 07:56:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:07 UTC