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

Re: Comment on Last Call Working Draft of RDF Semantics document concerning treating classes and properties as objects

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:46:53 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: "Qu Yuzhong" <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>, "Jeff Z Pan" <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "rdf-comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>


I'm trying to figure out what your comments are:

At 14:03 15/02/2003 +0800, Qu Yuzhong wrote:

>I agree with you in that RDFS has a non-standard metamodeling architecture.
>Although the current RDF Semantics [1] is better than previous version, it 
>still intertwists the ontology language layer and meta-language layer. In 
>other words, RDF Semantics [1] is ambitious in that it tries to give the 
>semantics of RDFS at both of ontology language layer and meta-language 
>layer with a single mechanism.
>Two comments:
>1) As an ontology language (at L layer [2]), RDFS should have a clear and 
>fixed semantics based on a subset of FOL (or other well known Logic such 
>as Order-Sorted Logic). The semantics of OWL (as an extension of RDFS at L 
>layer) can be defined by using the same approach.

As stated this is an unsupported statement of opinion, but since you seem 
be agreeing with Jeff, can I assume that this is support for Jeff's comment:


or did you have more to add?

>2) As a meta-language (at M layer [2]), RDFS should have another semantics 
>(not as the current one).

As it stands there is not much the WG can do with this comment.  It is a 
statement of opinion that the current RDFS semantics is bad.  There is no 
justification for this opinion, no explanation of any problems, no 
suggestions for what would be better.

If you could explain what the problem is with the current semantics, we 
might be able to do something with it.

Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 06:46:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC