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

Re: keep RDFS a separate layer from RDF

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 08:54:30 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030714083313.02584618@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 16:42 11/07/03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>On Fri, 2003-07-11 at 16:18, Graham Klyne wrote:
> > Until now, I've understood that, as a working group, we've been moving
> > toward defining RDF *and* RDFS, without being particularly concerned about
> > layering the defining documents.
>
>Not so;

Well, as a working group, we *have* been creating normative documents 
covering both RDF and RDFS...

>I was very concerned about this in my Nov 2002 review
>of RDF concepts:
>
>   "<CRITICAL>...the normative documentation of RDF doesn't include RDFS"
>   --
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0001.html
>
>and you accepted the comment.
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Nov/0076.html

Hmmm... I interpreted your comment there to relate to the idea of being 
able to use RDF without committing to use of RDFS, and were seeking to 
avoid language that suggested otherwise;  I still agree with that.   I did 
not interpret it as a request to downgrade the status of RDFS or to 
completely separate treatment of RDFS from RDF.  My apologies if I did not 
read your comment closely enough.

I think it is useful, and reflective of much actual practice with RDF, to 
have both namespaces mentioned in Concepts.  As to whether they're 
normative or not, I think that's less important.  Given that the URIs are 
specified normatively in the corresponding syntax/semantics/vocabulary 
documents, I'm tempted to suggest that section 4 of Concepts not be normative.

#g
--


> >   I think it's rather late in the day to
> > start backing away from this position.
>
>On the contrary, it's rather late to start mixing them.
>
> > Lacking some more compelling rationale, I'm inclined to decline this 
> request.
>
>I hope you find this compelling.
>
>
> > #g
> > --
> >
> > At 09:59 11/07/03 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> > >Please keep links from concepts to [RDF-VOCABULARY]
> > >informative, and add a note to semantics that
> > >while it specifies both languages, it completely
> > >specifies RDF without reference to RDFS.
> > >
> > >In particular, strike the 2nd bullet under
> > >"4. RDF Core URI Vocabulary and Namespaces (Normative)"
> > >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section- 
> URIspaces
> > >
> > >http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# (conventionally associated with
> > >namespace prefix rdfs:)
> > >
> > >and move the [RDF-VOCABULARY] citation from the list of
> > >normative references to the informative references.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Monday, 14 July 2003 04:54:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:45 EDT