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

Re: Comments on informal meaning of the RDFS vocabulary

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:20:39 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030129130923.0cc1e8a8@localhost>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 07:01 29/01/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

I really should have left Danbri to respond to this, (my fingers engaged 
before my brain), but having started it makes sense for me to keep going.

[... deleted part where Peter explains  ...]

Trying to reflect back the issue in my words, your concern is that schema 
document does not distinguish between parts of the specification that are 
formally captured in the model theory, and parts that are not, e.g.

   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_type

is supported by the model theory and

   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_comment

is not.

I agree that the schema doc does not make that distinction.

> >
> > Ah, right, I think I see the trend of what you are getting at here, but I
> > still need a clearer statement of what the issues are.
>
>The lack of a distinction in the wording describing rdf:type and rdfs:label
>takes part of the social meaning that is being promoted for RDF (i.e., the
>social meaning of rdfs:label) and tries to give it the same status as the
>model theory meaning.

What I'm not clear about is why it matters.

Can you offer a test case to illustrate a problem.  What difficulty is an 
implementor or a user going to have?

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 08:19:25 GMT

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