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

Re: status of rdf, rdfs, and owl ``namespace files''

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:34:33 +0000
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: Nick.Efthymiou@schwab.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <6424.1047998073@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" said:
> From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: status of rdf, rdfs, and owl ``namespace files'' 
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:40:17 +0000
> > >>>"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" said:
> > > 
> > > My comments do not address this issue at all.  I was inquiring as to what
> > > status the contents of these files have.  
> > 
> > I'm sorry but I don't see your inquiry in the www-rdf-comments
> > archive under this thread.  Maybe I missed it or you are bringing
> > this thread in from somewhere else?  I copied you in my reply to Nick
> > since he CC:ed you in Nick's original message:
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0490.html
> Well, you have to go back quite a ways, but here is the message.

Ahah, the subject had changed slightly and the email threading had
been lost.  I still had to hunt for the URL for your message:
from January, before these last call docs were published.

> Subject: status of RDF, RDFS, and OWL ``namespace files''
> From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
> To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 22:30:18 -0500 (EST)
> X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
> Hi:
> What is the status of 
> 	http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
> 	http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema
> Are they normative parts of the RDF specifications?  I don't see how, because
> ...

I assume you are refering to the documents that you GET at these
URIs.  Those are handy documents but RDF is a language and neither
allows nor forbids you to dereference URLs that it uses.

Brian already confirmed that the document at the second URI was
normative to you on 3rd January:

You can see it in the normative appendix of all drafts of the RDF
Schema/RDF Vocab WD going back several years:

With respect to the document at the URI
I agree it does not appear in our drafts, and maybe it should with draft
updates be made available in a working draft.

> ...
> 1/ Neither of them are valid in the RDF Model Theory or the RDFS
> model theory.

They are mostly(*) correct RDF/XML documents that generate RDF
triples but concentrating on validity, what needs to change?

It seems from the thread above that you mean valid inference from the
empty RDF graph to one of the RDF graphs produced from the RDF/XML
here.  The rdfs:comments correction has already been picked up, what
are the other specific problems.

(*) There may be syntax updating necessary to remove warnings about
unprefixed attributes - the RDF Vocab WD above contains such a draft
update.  Plus the new vocab added.

> 2/ http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
>    does not have elements that correspond to all the elements of the RDF
>    namespace. 

I assume you mean descriptions of vocabulary terms, not XML elements.

If you trying to say that the triples do not describe the newer
vocabulary terms that the RDF Core WG added for Collections (List,
first, rest, nil) and datatypes (XMLLiteral) and are asking for this
to be corrected, this could be part of the action for the same issue above.

> If they are not normative, what is their status?

The first is already, as in, defined by the current drafts.

> One reason that I ask is that WebOnt has a similar sort of document
> 	http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl

For some reason the RDF validator fails on that file, might be a
temporary error.  Seems to generate correct triples when I try it.

I'm curious if someone has checked if this document is rdf-valid
and rdfs-valid.

> with some of the same problems, but because of owl:imports the actual
> contents of the document matters more.
> In fact, owl:imports makes the contents of
> 	http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
> 	http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema
> matter more.

"matters more" isn't very clear, so I guess this means that OWL has
some other requirement on these files.  This might need some WG
coordination if WebOnt the group has some requirement that isn't
covered by another last call issue.

So summarising, would these satisfy you for this comment:

  1. Add a new normative section to one working draft
     I suggest rdf/xml wd (or possibly vocab) that gives a corrected
     content of http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
     with the terms correct for the updated RDF vocabulary terms:
       first, rest, nil, XMLLiteral
     probably as a new normative appendix.

  2. Ensure the two documents at the URIs as given in the drafts
     are rdf-valid, rdfs-valid from the RDF Semantics WD point of view.
       - need specific items to track here that have been raised (rdfs:comment)

  3. Update the documents at the two URIs
     - this might be a coordination action require some further W3C
       process, I'm not sure.

  4. Ask WebOnt what, if any changes, owl:import requires on these documents.

Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 09:34:42 UTC

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