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 15:30:32 +0000
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: Nick.Efthymiou@schwab.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <1898.1048174232@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: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:52:20 +0000
> 
> > I'm still unconvinced by this claim, 
> 
> Huh?  You believe that the rdfs:domain information in the RDF file is 
> RDF-entailed by the empty RDF graph?  I suggest that you talk to Pat about
> this.

No, I believe using validity as the only measure for determining the
content is not convincing.  As I've described, there are several
deployed RDF applications using those documents right now, many of
them with no concern for rdf-valid or rdfs-valid.

<snip/>

> > You seriously want us to produce a graph describing an infinite
> > number of rdf properties?   This must be some kind of subtle joke :)
> 
> No joke.  I'm just pointing out (somewhat indirectly) that one of the
> things that one might like to do with these documents is not possible.

So describing those properties is not possible.  Describing the rest
of the terms is possible and has been done (needs updating).  That
does not mean the documents become useless.

> > 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.
> > 
> > Dave
> 
> Well then, how about 

> Appendix A: Partial Description of RDF Schema Vocabulary in RDF/XML
> ...

<snip/>

I proposed writing such an appendix in my earlier reply
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0528.html
to which you replied "This would be one way to proceed."
However, since you now want this, I think now we a clear enough
understanding to consider.

The issue is then (item 1 ibid) to update the document at
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns (which the WG doesn't at
present control, this will need working out - item 3 ibid) to
describe the newer RDF vocabulary and adding as a normative appendix
to one of the working drafts.

This document is already used by RDF applications so changes will
have to be made carefully and to continue to allow the variety of
purposes that they are already using it for.  However, the specific
purposes of rdf & rdfs validity (item 2 ibid) and webont's owl:import
(item 4 ibid) will be added to this consideration.

Dave
Received on Thursday, 20 March 2003 10:32:28 GMT

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