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

Issue #webont-01 rename rdf schema

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:42:18 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030228222934.0a1c3908@localhost>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Jim,

Many thanks for webont's efforts in reviewing the RDFCore specs.

[...]

>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.

I think this is the same issue as

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01

I have added webont as a co-submitter.


>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.

I think this is the same comment as

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#hendler-01

Again I have recorded webont as a co-submitter.


>-------------------------------------------
>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.

This issue is recorded as

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-14

As before, I have recorded webont as a co-submitter.


>-------------------------------------------
>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).

I see not comments from Raphael.

>  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.

This comment has been recorded as

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#webont-01

RDFCore will consider this and respond in due course.


>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.

This has been recorded as

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01

As webont did not reach consensus, I have not added webont as a 
co-submitter, but we are aware that Ian is not alone in his concern.


>-------------------------------------------
>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.

Many thanks to Herman, Peter and others who are helping to improve the 
semantics document.  I believe no specific action is needed here by RDFCore 
other than to respond to the comments made by Herman and Peter.

Thanks for all your efforts Jim.  If you have any concerns, let me know.

Brian
Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 17:42:46 GMT

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