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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 07:46:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030525.074630.84189332.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: danbri@w3.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

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 F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Sunday, 25 May 2003 07:46:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:33 EDT