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

[schema] Re: Web Ontology Working Group Consensus Review of RDF Core documents

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:33:34 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b40ba7c3bd935d9@[10.0.100.86]>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>At 05:17 PM 2/20/03 -0500, Jim Hendler wrote:
>>-------------------------------------------
>>WOWG comments on the RDF Schema Document
>>--------------------------------------------
>>We believe that the design of the language, as reflected in the LC 
>>documents, is such that OWL can appropriately use RDF Schema and 
>>endorse this design.
>>
>>Raphael Volz of our group has prepared a detailed review of this 
>>document which he will send to the RDF Core WG.  The Web Ontology 
>>Working Group agrees with the spirit of his review (except for the 
>>comments on section 4, which was only supported by part of the WG). 
>>We summarize our main comments below:
>>
>>i. Although this document is called RDF Schema we think that the 
>>title "RDF Vocabulary Description Language" would be clearer, and 
>>make the difference from XML Schema (used for validation) more 
>>evident.
>
>I would support such a change (indeed, I thought this was our intent?).
>
>>ii. Although we did not reach consensus on this, several members 
>>felt that it was unacceptable that two graphs that differ only in 
>>their rdfs:comment content would not entail each other.
>
>Aha!  The rdfs:comment rubber hits the road!

If you read the Webont archives for 2003 you will see that there is a 
multi-vehicle pileup, with rescue crews using cutters to try to get 
the bodies out before the spilt diesel fuel catches fire.

>  To my view, having G1 entail G2, where G1 and G2 vary only in the 
>[content of] rdfs:comment statements would be a significant shift in 
>my understanding of the intent of rdfs:comment.  But I also think 
>that rdf:comment may be unfortunately named, since I could imagine a 
>view of rdfs:comment that is, by fiat, true in all interpretations.
>
>As specified, rdfs:comment might be understood as "informal 
>definition" rather than "something that might be said about".

Then why do we have rdfs:isDefinedBy as well as rdfs:comment??

>But the name suggests the latter.
>
>ALthough this impacts the definition of RDF, it does not do so in a 
>way that changes any existing software, so this might be a good time 
>to contemplate renaming rdfs:comment to (say) rdfs:intent, and 
>changing the semantics so that:
>   x rdfs:comment "some text"
>is true in all RDFS-interpetations.

I would be happy with that semantic change, though it strikes me as 
damn silly. But Ian feels very strongly about this one, and I don't.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Friday, 21 February 2003 15:33:38 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:51 EDT