- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 17:17:56 -0500
- To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
The Web Ontology Working Group (WOWG) resolved by consensus today, to send the following response to the RDF Core WG on the documents we were asked to review: RDFCore LC documents Response by the Web Ontology Working Group 20 Feb 2003 -------------- WOWG comments on RDF language decisions -------------- i. Design of rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:parseType="Literal": The full integration of this feature of RDF into OWL necessitates that the denotation in the domain of discourse be fully defined by the source RDF/XML file. We therefore request that you remove sufficient implementation variability to ensure that this is the case. An example fix would be to require an RDF/XML parser to use a specific canonicalization on input. ii.Constraints on rdf:parsetype="Collection" We would prefer that rdf:parsetype="Collection" would be allowed to be a list of datatype literals, not just a list of RDF node elements. This, would permit some constructs in OWL that are difficult under the current design. ------------------------------------------- WOWG comments on the RDF Concepts Document -------------------------------------------- We believe the RDF Concepts Document is a useful document and helpful in understanding RDF and its use. However, out Working Group did have some concerns with respect to the issue of social meaning as discussed in this document. The Web Ontology WG has mixed views on this issue and could not agree on a specific consensus response in the time available. However, we note that a number of participants in the Web Ontology WG have serious reservations about the RDF view on the social meaning of RDF. We did reach consensus to request that the wording in the RDF Schema and the RDF Concepts documents be rephrased to explain this issue, and particularly its impact, more clearly, as this has ramifications on other languages, such as OWL, which are extensions to RDF. ------------------------------------------- WOWG comments on the RDF Schema Document -------------------------------------------- We believe that the design of the language, as reflected in the LC documents, is such that OWL can appropriately use RDF Schema and endorse this design. Raphael Volz of our group has prepared a detailed review of this document which he will send to the RDF Core WG. The Web Ontology Working Group agrees with the spirit of his review (except for the comments on section 4, which was only supported by part of the WG). We summarize our main comments below: i. Although this document is called RDF Schema we think that the title "RDF Vocabulary Description Language" would be clearer, and make the difference from XML Schema (used for validation) more evident. ii. Although we did not reach consensus on this, several members felt that it was unacceptable that two graphs that differ only in their rdfs:comment content would not entail each other. ------------------------------------------- WOWG comments on the RDF Semantics document -------------------------------------------- We believe that the intended design of the semantics, as reflected in the LC documents, is such that OWL will be able to layer appropriately. However, we have a number of concerns that need to be addressed to improve the document and, in particular, to fix some apparent inconsistencies in the current document. Herman ter Horst of our group has prepared a detailed review of this document itemizing inconsistencies he has found. The Web Ontology WG has asked Herman and the editor of our Semantics Document (Peter Patel-Schneider) to help insure that the final RDF Semantics document fixes the inconsistencies and editorial issues that are identified. Submitted - 2/20/2003 J. Hendler Co-Chair, WOWG
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 17:18:20 UTC