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

Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:50:29 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030618105029.GC16896@tux.w3.org>

* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-05-25 07:46-0400]
> From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> Subject: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)
> Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 05:30:22 -0400
> 
> > Brian and I are discussing ways of clarifying the RDFS doc to 
> > close issue pfps-11, 'rdfs:comment implies entailments'.
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-11
> > 
> > raised: 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0145.html
> > 
> > summary:
> > [[
> > We agree that the schema document uses the same form of words for 
> > specifying, for example, rdf:type for which there are semantic conditions 
> > expressed in the model theory document, and say rdfs:comment for which no 
> > (or very much weaker) semantic conditions are expressed in the model theory 
> > document.
> > 
> > You are concerned that this might mislead a reader into thinking that there 
> > are model theoretic consequences that are not specified in the semantics 
> > document as illustrated in the Cretan example given above.
> > ]]
> > 
> > We propose the adddition of a clarifying sentence to 
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_comment in the main paragraph concerning
> > rdfs:comment.
> > 
> > After 'Since RDF vocabularies are expressed as RDF graphs,
> > vocabularies defined in other namespaces may be used to provide
> > richer documentation.'
> > ...add: 'Note that there are no model-theoretic consequences entailed by 
> > any assertions represented in the value of the rdfs:comment.'
> > 
> > Dan
> 
> This response does not satisfactorily address even the summary of my
> comment.  How can it, as the summary uses rdfs:commment as only an example
> of where the RDF Semantics document goes beyond the RDF semantics?  Other
> examples include rdfs:label, rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:List, rdf:Alt,
> rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object, and rdfs:isDefinedBy.
> I note that recent changes to the RDF semantics have added rdfs:Datatype to
> this category.  There may also be others - with so many examples, it is
> entirely possible that I have missed some.
> 
> A solution to the general problem of the RDF Schema document promising more
> than is delivered is needed, not just a solution to one example of the
> problem.

Peter,

re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0233.html

Thanks for your comments on our suggested closure of this issue. I have an 
action from RDFCore's June 6th meeting[1] to ask whether there are specific 
textual changes to the RDFS document that you would prefer. If you could offer 
some suggestions, perhaps we can find a way of closing this issue.

Thanks,

Dan

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0067.html
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 06:50:33 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:56 EDT