Danbri and I have been discussing issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#vass-01 Its quite hard to get a crisp quote of the problem from the email thread but I think the issue is that schema does not layer the same way as, say UML, in that classes can be members of themselves and one can take a subproperty of subPropertyOf or rdf:type. I think we need to clearly articulate the advantages of the design choice that has been made. I suggest the following reason for the design choice and why we should not change. I welcome comments and other suggestions: 1) RDFS is designed to be a lower layer for the semantic web stack that is extended by restriction. All structure at this layer is imposed on all higher layers. A layered structure is not necessary and the principle of minimal restriction suggests it should be omitted. 2) A further consideration is the cost of change at this point. To switch to a layered approach would require a massive rethink and would affect not only the RDFCore specs but also OWL. Only a show stopping problem with the current design could justify the cost of such a change. We note that it is possible to build more strictly layered languages on top of RDF(S), Owl DL/Lite being examples. BrianReceived on Saturday, 24 May 2003 08:14:45 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:33 EDT