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

Re: review of LCC documents as of 26 December 2002

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:14:26 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030102170529.0409ac50@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 10:03 02/01/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

>However, they should at least help comprehension of RDF and RDFS, or,
>maybe, not harm such comprehension.  I believe that the above paragraph
>firmly sits in the category of paragraphs that will end up harming the
>comprehension of RDF and RDFS.

Let me try a rewording that might deal with your objectsions.

[[RDF's vocabulary description language, RDF Schema, is an extension of 
RDF. All RDF Schema vocabularies share some basic common structure: they 
describe resources, classes of resources and relationships. This 
commonality allows for a finer grained mixing of machine-processable 
vocabularies, and addresses the need [EXTWEB] to create metadata in which 
statements can draw upon multiple vocabularies that are managed in a 
decentralized fashion by independent communities.  RDF Schema uses a 
semantic extension of RDF to provide an ability to describe classes or 
resources and relationships.]]

If that doesn't work, would you like to suggest an alternative.

[...]

>Well, I sure read it that the ``defined by the tax office'' meant ``defined
>by the tax office', not ``having a "defined" property whose value is "tax
>office"''.  I consider these two senses of property to be very different.

Right, and the text can be read either way and both readings are true.

[...]

> >
> > Would marking the section as informative rather than normative help?
>
>Perhaps.  I would have to revisit this issue in the context of the entire
>document.

Fair enough.  I think it should be so marked and have done so in the latest 
version.  I think I'd prefer that section to be in the primer.  It is 
actually covered in the primer, so maybe could be eliminated from 
here.  I'll add note to consider deletion.

Brian
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2003 12:13:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT