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

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:29:29 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030225152818.0445a3f0@127.0.0.1>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

If this is not felt to be actively helpful, I withdraw the comment.  I 
don't feel strongly about it, and there is advantage in making fewer changes.

#g
--

At 02:33 PM 2/21/03 -0600, pat hayes wrote:

>>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

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 12:19:45 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:53 EDT