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

Re: keep RDFS a separate layer from RDF

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 12:28:24 -0400
Message-ID: <3F12DA28.84B8BC7D@mitre.org>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

A further comment on this distinction.  In section 1 of Concepts, there
appears:

"The framework is designed so that vocabularies can be layered on top of
a core. The RDF core and RDF vocabulary definition (RDF schema)
languages [RDF-VOCABULARY] are the first such vocabularies. Others (cf.
OWL [OWL] and the applications mentioned in the primer [RDF-PRIMER]) are
in development."

In Section 4, there appears:

"Used with the RDF/XML serialization, these URI prefix strings
correspond to XML namespace names [XML-NS] associated with the RDF core
vocabulary terms."

This seems to suggest that the two things we have to try to distinguish
are "the RDF core" and RDF schema, and that there are differences
between "RDF", "RDF core", and "RDF Schema". If there are such
differences, could you say what they are?  In the Primer, I've been
trying to keep distinct "RDF" and "RDF Schema" (the word "core" doesn't
appear, except in connection with the name of the WG).  If there's no
difference between "RDF" and "RDF core" (as being the language for which
Concepts defines the abstract syntax and Syntax defines the RDF/XML
syntax), then I'd sure suggest deleting the word "core", as causing
potential questions.

--Frank

Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> Follow-up to previous message [1], and with reference to existing text [2] ...
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0171.html
> 
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-URIspaces
> 
> At 08:54 14/07/03 +0100, Graham Klyne wrote:
> >... 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 think it is useful, and reflective of much actual practice with RDF, to
> >have both namespaces mentioned in Concepts.
> 
> In reviewing the text we agreed at Friday's telecon, specifically:
> [[
> RDF uses URI references to identify resources and properties.
> Certain URI references are given specific meaning by RDF.
> Specifically, URI references with the following leading substrings are
> defined by the RDF specifications:
> ]]
> 
> The following small change to that text might be more in keeping with
> non-dependence of RDF on RDFS:
> [[
> RDF uses URI references to identify resources and properties.
> Certain URI references are given specific meaning by RDF and RDF Schema.
> Specifically, URI references with the following leading substrings are
> defined by the RDF and RDF Schema specifications:
> ]]
> Note addition of: "and RDF Schema".  I think this makes it more explicit
> that the RDF schema namespace is not meant to be treated as part of the RDF
> core language.
> 
> #g
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Monday, 14 July 2003 12:29:33 EDT

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