W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > April to June 2003

[closed] Re: pfps-25 schema semantics

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:02:06 -0400
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030618140206.GD11302@tux.w3.org>

Per previous discussion and confirmed in 
RDF Core WG telecon of June 6th,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0067.html 
this issue is now marked as closed.

Peter,

Please reply to this message as to whether this response is
satisfactory, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org. Thanks again for 
your comments.

Dan

* Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-05-24 11:23+0100]
> 
> Pat, Peter,
> 
> I think the Schema Doc and the semantics doc are now in sync on these so 
> I'm proposing a formal motion to close below.  Please let us know if 
> there's a problem I missed.
> 
> ------------
> 
> RDFCore,
> 
> Sitting together, Danbri and I have been reviewing issue
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-25
> 
> that concerns a number of discrepancies between the schema doc and the 
> semantics doc.
> 
> The first point is:
> 
> [[
> - Schema states ``Each instance of rdfs:Datatype is a subclass of
>   rdfs:Literal'', but this is only a consequence of D-interpretations, not
>   RDFS-interpretations.
> ]]
> 
> The current editors draft of the semantics doc
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#rdfs_interp
> 
> now says that this relationship is a consequence of RDFS - 
> interpretations.  Pat please can you confirm this.
> 
> [[
> - Schema states ``rdf:XMLLiteral is an instance of rdfs:Datatype and a
>   subclass of rdfs:Literal''.   The second part of this is not even a
>   consequence of D-interpretations.
> ]]
> 
> These assertions are now also included in RDFS interpretations as stated in 
> the editors draft of the semantics doc:
> 
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#rdfs_interp
> 
> Pat - confirm?
> 
> [[
> - Schema states
> 	``The rdfs:domain of rdf:type is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:label is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:comment is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:comment is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:member is rdfs:Resource.''   @@@@@@
> 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:member is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:first is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:range of rdf:subject is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:range of rdf:resource is rdf:Property.''
> I presume Peter meant the range of rdf:Predicate is rdf:Property
> 	``The rdfs:range of rdf:object is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:seeAlso is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:seeAlso is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:isDefinedBy is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:isDefinedBy is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:value is rdfs:Resource.''
> 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:value is rdfs:Resource.''
>   but none of these are consequences of RDFS-interpretations.  (Well,
>   actually Semantics is vague about most of these, as there is a vague
>   addendum to the conditions on RDFS-interpretations that indicates that
>   some domain and range assertions ``may be taken to be rdfs:Resource''.
>   In my view this vagueness is inappropriate for the definition of
>   RDFS-interpretations.)
> ]]
> 
> Semantics is no longer vague about these.  It specifies them as above, 
> except that the one marked @@@@@ is incorrectly stated.
> 
> Propose:
> 
>   1) modify the semantics document to state that the rdfs:domain of 
> rdfs:member is rdfs:Resource.
>   2) that the current semantics editors WD, modified as per 1) addresses 
> this comment
> 
> Brian
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 10:02:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT