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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:52:20 +0000
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: Nick.Efthymiou@schwab.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <29893.1048161140@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 14:34:33 +0000
> [...]
> > > 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, bec
> > > ...
> > 
> > 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:
> >   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0007.html
> > 
> > You can see it in the normative appendix of all drafts of the RDF
> > Schema/RDF Vocab WD going back several years:
> >   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/
> > 
> > With respect to the document at the URI
> >   http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
> > I agree it does not appear in our drafts, and maybe it should with draft
> > updates be made available in a working draft.
> OK, so the thinking is that these documents should be normative.  OK, what
> then do they mean?  What information needs to be them?

It isn't thinking - one of them already is in a normative working
draft as I've pointed out clearly.  I said "maybe" for the 'rdf:'
XML namespace document.

The RDF Core working group deals with a set of working drafts, it
doesn't necessarily have the right to update other documents on
www.w3.org such as these ones.  That would probably require some W3C
coordination and agreemenmt, so I (not speaking for the WG) cannot
offer to do that.

I have already answered in detail what those documents give -
triples, which you deleted from my email.

> There are several possible answers to these questions, and I do not believe
> that there has been much, if any, indication as to which one is supposed to
> be the case.
> The answers include:
> 1/ The documents are valid in that they are true in all RDF (RDFS, D-)
>    interpretations. 

You seem to think that validity is the only requirement for these
documents.  Description of the terms for humans is another one and
they are being substantially used for that in many RDF applications.

> 2/ The documents are complete in that they include all the information
>    about the RDF (RDFS, D-) vocabulary that can be represented in RDF
>    (RDFS, D-, multiplicatively).  In normal circumstances, this answer
>    would generally also include validity, but I suppose that this could be
>    relaxed, particularly for rdfs:comment, etc.
> 3/ They are documents that serve only to introduce all of the RDF (RDFS,
>    D-) vocabulary, but no validity or completeness.
> 4/ The documents only provide some hint as to some aspects of some part of
>    RDF. 
> As far as I can tell 4/ is the current answer.

Description of the terms is more like it.  There are already several
systems that use these documents along with RDF & RDFS entailment or
other logic to do useful work checking data - Sesame, VRP, KAON at

> > > ...
> > > 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 is invalid information in these documents related to rdfs:comment,
> rdfs:label, rdfs:isDefinedBy, and rdfs:seeAlso.  The RDF file also contains
> rdfs:domain and rdfs:range information that is not valid in RDF.
> (It is valid in RDFS, but not in RDF.)

I'm still unconvinced by this claim, but I've now got a list of the
terms you have problems with - thanks.

> ...
> > 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.
> Nope, this is not the only lacks here.
> This file does not include any of the container membership properties, for
> example.

i.e the properties named rdf:_<n> where n is a decimal integer greater than 0.

You seriously want us to produce a graph describing an infinite
number of rdf properties?   This must be some kind of subtle joke :)

> [my long reply elided]
> This would be one way to proceed.

Given this is neither a yes or no and getting no resolution of your
problems you think you have.  Maybe rather than me trying to guess
solution you want, it would be easier if you just stated what changes
to specific sections of RDF Core working drafts that would resolve
this thread for you.  Changes to other documents are less likely to
be possible.

Received on Thursday, 20 March 2003 06:53:37 UTC

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