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

Re: Divergences between RDF Semantics and RDF Schema

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:47:41 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030324164703.03748af0@localhost>
To: 20030128.142921.88486202.pfps@research.bell-labs.com, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: brian_mcbride@hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Recorded as:

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-25

Brian

At 10:37 21/03/2003 -0500, Dan Brickley wrote:

>Hi Peter,
>
>You raise a last call review comment on RDF Schema (and RDF Semantics) in
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0124.html
>
>...noting that there are apparent divergences between these two
>specifications. Thanks for the careful comparision of our documents. To help
>us track this, I believe we should open an issue on
>'schema/semantics divergence' to keep track of this.
>
>Brian, could you open an issue please, unless there is another existing
>issue under which the comments in
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0124.html 
>could be filed.
>
>I also note editorially that the language in Schema that says
>'_the_ rdfs:range of ...' may be contentious, since there may well turn out
>  to be other true 'range' assertions about our properties (perhaps
>asserted by other working groups). Maybe OWL(Full?) already does this?
>Perhaps we should take more care to write 'an rdfs:range ...' instead of
>'the rdfs:range ...'.
>
>
>Thanks again for your comments,
>
>Dan
Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 11:47:57 GMT

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