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

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

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 15:55:09 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030701155221.0310f450@127.0.0.1>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

OK, I'll take this back to the WG for further consideration.

(Why did I mark the threads as closed?  I'm just muddled about the 
process.  I agree, it doesn't seem logical.)

#g
--

At 08:17 01/07/03 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>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
>http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/rdfs.html#5.2
>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.
>
>peter
>
>
>
>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

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2003 12:02:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT