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

Dan--

You seem to be assuming that readers of the vocab spec will understand 
the consequences of saying "Note that there are no model-theoretic 
consequences entailed by any assertions represented in the value of the 
rdfs:comment".  How realistic do you think that is?

--Frank



Dan Brickley wrote:

> 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
> 
> 


-- 
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 Saturday, 24 May 2003 11:57:26 UTC