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

Re: [closed] pfps-22,pfps-23: "reserved names in abstract syntax"

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:17:52 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030701.081752.74181133.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: gk@ninebynine.org
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

I am still unhappy with the way that RDF sort of reserves certain things to
itself, but also sort of allows anyone to do anything.  

In particular, Section 2.2.6 says ``RDF is an open-world framework that
allows anyone to make statements about any resource'' but Section 4 says
``Certain URI references are reserved for use by RDF and should not be used
in ways not supported by the RDF specficiations.''  

So, what is the status of, for example, 

	rdfs:Class rdfs:Class rdfs:Class .

Is it a) completely unobjectionable, b) something that should not be done,
or c) forbidden?  Section 2.2.6 argues for a); Section 4 argues for b) or
maybe even c).  

Similarly, what is the status of OWL's use of the RDF and RDFS
vocabularies?  (See
for the current editor's draft of the most relevant portion of the OWL
specifications.)  Is this something that any formal specification can
unobjectionably do, or is there something wrong with using the RDF and RDFS
vocabularies in this fashion?

The RDF Semantics document makes this even less clear as it explicitly
mentions that semantic extensions may modify the meaning of rdfs:domain and
rdfs:range (Section 4.1), but does not say anthing similar for most other
elements of the RDF and RDFS vocabularies.


From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Subject: [closed] pfps-22,pfps-23: "reserved names in abstract syntax"
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 10:26:19 +0100

> Peter,
> With reference to your comments raised in:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0148.html
> and subsequent exchanges linked from:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0314.html
> specifically with reference to the issue of reserved names in the RDF 
> syntax, and the notion of uses "sanctioned by" RDF, which were crystalized in:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0194.html
> The RDFcore working group has resolved per:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0207.html
> (agendum 16) to revise the text along the lines of:
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0201.html
> Revised text can be previewed in the editors' working draft at:
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117
> Could you please respond, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, indicating 
> whether or not you regard your comments have been adequately addressed.
> Thank you for your attention,
> Graham Klyne
> (for RDFcore working group)
> #g
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 08:18:02 UTC

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