W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: RDF Issue rdfs-constraint-properties-resources

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:50:24 -0500 (EST)
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111121045520.20902-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Brian McBride wrote:
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > In
> >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0128.html
> >
> > you raised an issue with the RDF Schema specification whic was recorded in
> >
> >    http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-constraint-properties-resources
> >
> > as
> >
> >    Are constraint properties and contraint resources useful. If not, then
> >    eliminate them.
> >
> > On 9th November 2001, the RDFCore WG resolved:
> >
> >    The current mechanism, rdfs:ConstraintResource and
> >    rdfs:ConstraintProperty, fails to serve its original purpose and
> >    should be removed from the RDF Schema 1.0 specification. The
> >    accompanying text be amended accordingly.
> >
> > Please could you reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org,
> > indicating whether this decision satisfactorily resolves the issue.
>
> I'm satisfied with the decision to remove them.
>
> I wonder what "its original purpose" refers to.

I said a little more about this in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0575.html
(I'd cite the old RDF Schema WG archives but they're Member visible and
the search tool wasn't working last time I looked).

The original purpose was to allow RDFS 1.0 tools to understand when
they're encountering "constraints" such as rdfs:range/rdfs:domain other
than those explicitly defined in the 1.0 spec. There is more prose in the
Schema spec to similar effect. Historically, this followed from the RDF
Schema WG's decision to drop a bunch of stuff (such as class-contextual
constraints) similar to features that we now see in DAML+OIL. The problem
with our approach was that we didn't make clear what a "constraint" really
amounted to, which in effect made the mechanism undeployable.

Dan
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 10:51:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:29 GMT