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

Re: keep RDFS a separate layer from RDF

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 15 Jul 2003 12:35:09 -0500
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1058290509.2425.245.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 11:48, pat hayes 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.
> 
> Done. Section 1.3 now says just before the first semantics table:
> 
> Note that the semantics of RDF does not depend on that of RDFS. The 
> full semantics of RDF is defined in sections 1 and 3; the full 
> semantics of RDFS in sections 1, 3 and 4.
> 
> >
> >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.
> 
> Does that apply to the semantics doc as well?

I wish it did; I wish we had split semantics into RDF
semantics and RDFS semantics. But we didn't. So no,
RDF semantics should cite RDFS normatively.
I think this is a bug. I wish we had time to fix it.

I think we do have time to fix it for Concepts;
it's a one-line fix.

> Pat
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2003 13:35:11 EDT

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