- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 13:20:39 +0000
- 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 UTC