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

Re: pfps-12 lists are not well formed

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:28:27 -0400
To: tolle@dbis.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030618162827.GK11302@tux.w3.org>

resent copying Karsten, who also raised this issue. Karsten, could you 
respond per the request below, letting us know if this is a satisfactory 
resolution of your concern?

Thanks again for your comments on our work,

Dan

previous discussion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0422.html

* Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> [2003-06-18 12:16-0400]
> 
> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-05-25 07:24-0400]
> > 
> > From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> > Subject: pfps-12 lists are not well formed
> > Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 13:58:39 +0100
> > 
> > > Peter,
> > > 
> > > Danbri and I have been discussing how to resolve your issue about the 
> > > wellformedness of lists:
> > > 
> > >    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-12
> > > 
> > > We are proposing to add the following note to the text at:
> > > 
> > >    http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_collectionvocab
> > > 
> > > as the last paragraph.
> > > 
> > > [[
> > > NOTE:  It is possible to construct RDF graphs that use the RDF collections 
> > > vocabulary to partially describe a list.  Similarly there are graphs that 
> > > use this vocabulary in a way that is consistent with the RDF(S) formal 
> > > semantics, yet do not represent "well formed" lists.
> > > ]]
> > > 
> > > We considered trying to trying to provide a full prose account of the 
> > > wellformedness of lists, but are currently disinclined to attempt such an 
> > > intricate task in natural language.
> > > 
> > > Will adding this note address your concern.  If not, could you please 
> > > suggest alternative text that you would find more satisfactory.
> > > 
> > > Brian
> > 
> > I fail to see how this response addresses my comment.  
> > 
> > I don't see how it addresses
> > 
> > > The RDF Schema document provides intended meanings for some of the RDFS
> > > vocabulary that is not supported by the RDF Semantics.  Vocabulary that
> > > fits into this category includes rdfs:label and rdfs:comment.
> > [from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0126.html]
> > 
> > I don't see how it addresses
> > 
> > > Consider the following three examples (slightly reformatted but otherwise
> > > unchanged):
> > > 
> > > 	rdf:type is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to state that
> > > 	a resource is an instance of a class.  A triple of the form:
> > > 		R rdf:type C
> > > 	states that C is an instance of rdfs:Class and R is an instance of C.
> > > 
> > > 	rdf:first is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to indicate
> > > 	the first item of a list.  A triple of the form:
> > > 		L rdf:first O
> > > 	states that L is an instance of rdf:List and that O is the first
> > > 	item of the list. 
> > > 
> > > 	rdfs:label is an instance of rdf:Property that is used to provide a
> > > 	human-readable version of a resource's name.  A triple of the form:
> > > 		R rdfs:label L
> > > 	states that L is a human readable label for R.
> > > 
> > > There is essentially no difference between the way these three are worded.
> > > However, the first (rdf:type) is a fundamental part of the semantics of
> > > RDF.  There are semantic conditions in RDF that make the description above
> > > for rdf:type part of the very meaning of RDF.  The second (rdf:first) and
> > > third (rdfs:label), on the other hand, have a very different status.  There
> > > are no semantic conditions that force the descriptions above for these two
> > > vocabulary elements to play the roles given for them.
> > [from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0133.html]
> > 
> > The point of my comments here has always been that there are parts of the
> > RDF Schema document that go beyond what is supported by the RDF semantics.
> > I believe that these parts of the document should be changed, and that
> > changes to other parts of the document will not suffice to override these
> > over-reaching parts of the document.
> > 
> > For the case of rdf:first above, I would much prefer
> > 
> >  	rdf:first is an instance of rdf:Property that can be used to build
> >  	descriptions of lists and other list-like structures.  A triple of
> >  	the form:
> >  		L rdf:first O
> >  	states that there is a first-element relationship between L and O.
> > 
> > 	Note:  RDFS does not require that there be only one first element
> > 	of a list-like structure, or even that a list-like structure have a
> > 	first element.
> 
> This looks good. At the June 6th telecon[1] we decided to run with your 
> proposed form of words, but note that your text didn't mention the 
> domain and range constraints associated with these concepts.
> 
> A slightly amended form is:
> [[
> rdf:first is an instance of rdf:Property that can be used to
> build descriptions of lists and other list-like structures.
> A triple of the form:
>   
>   L rdf:first O
>   
> states that there is a first-element relationship between L and O.
> The rdfs:domain of rdf:first is rdf:List.  The rdfs:range of rdf:first
> is rdfs:Resource.
>   
> Note:  RDFS does not require that there be only one first element of
> a list-like structure, or even that a list-like structure have a first
> element.
> ]]
> 
> 
> > I note that similar changes would have to be make for at least rdf:rest and
> > rdf:List.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> The WG (per [1]) proposes to close this issue by resolving to adopt text in the 
> above form for the RDF lists vocabulary.
> 
> Please reply to this message as to whether this response is
> satisfactory, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org. 
> 
> Dan
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0067.html
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 12:29:26 GMT

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