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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:18:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030618.141852.105950222.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Subject: Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:50:29 -0400

> * 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

Well, the most recent version of the RDF Schema document that I have access
to is the last-call version.  I am not particularly interested in supplying
wording changes for an out-of-date version of the document.  If you want
some suggestions send me the current version of the document.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 14:19:11 EDT

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