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

Re: What is RDF Schema? [proposed closed]

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:45:41 -0400
Message-ID: <3F2AD175.5060904@mitre.org>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

pat hayes wrote:

> 
>> I believe there may be a problem with the word "core".  It seems to me 
>> we have an "rdf" vocabulary and an "rdfs" vocabulary, but not an "rdf 
>> core" vocabulary (think "RDF core vocabulary" has now been expunged 
>> from Concepts).
> 
> 
> Ah, this may be my fault. I needed a word to refer to the subvocabulary 
> of the RDF namespace to which the rdf semantic conditions apply, and I 
> invented the name 'core RDF vocabulary'. Maybe that was a bad choice of 
> terminology.
> 
> Would it be better is I used a different term, say "central RDF 
> vocabulary" ?


Pat--

I don't think it's "your fault".  There's no problem (at least, not as 
far as I'm concerned) with using terms like "core RDF vocabulary" in a 
context where the distinction that was intended when the term was 
invented is explained (like, how does the "core RDF vocabulary" differ 
from the rest of the RDF vocabulary).  What you say above seems to 
indicate that this distinction is made in Semantics, and that's fine. 
The appearance of "core RDF vocabulary" (or "core RDF vocabulary") in 
other documents is generally unaccompanied by any explanation, so you're 
left wondering which bits of RDF vocabulary are "core" and which aren't 
(or, if they're all "core", why not just say "RDF vocabulary"). 
Changing "core" to "central" doesn't deal with this problem;  it just 
changes the question to which bits are "central" and which aren't.

--Frank


> 
> There is now a version of the document at
> 
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semant_Edit_Central.html
> 
> which has this name change made (2 places plus change log). In all other 
> respects it is identical to
> 
> http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semant_Edit_Weak.html
> 
> Pat
> 
> PS. the reason for 'central' is that it allows me to keep the 
> abbreviation 'crdfV'
> 
>> --Frank
>>
>> Dan Brickley wrote:
>>
>>> * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-08-01 
>>> 09:42-0400]
>>>
>>>> Looks good.
>>>>
>>>> I notice however, that the first sentence of Appendix A is 
>>>> incorrect.  The
>>>> description is really an RDFS description.  I do not believe that 
>>>> there is
>>>> an ``RDF Core vocabulary'' and if there were, this would not be it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> currently we have:
>>> "An RDF description of the RDF Core vocabulary is given here in RDF/XML
>>> serialization syntax."
>>>
>>> I'd accept that "An RDFS description of ..." would be more appropriate.
>>>
>>> Then the question of what we're describing. Currently we _do_ describe
>>> both the RDF namespaces owned/managed by RDF Core, ie. 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# but also the older 
>>> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# so our RDF/XML appendix 
>>> includes claims such as:
>>>
>>> [[
>>> <rdfs:Class
>>> rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property">
>>>   <rdfs:isDefinedBy
>>>  rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"/>
>>> <rdfs:label>Property</rdfs:label>
>>> <rdfs:comment>The class of RDF properties.</rdfs:comment>
>>> <rdfs:subClassOf 
>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource"/>
>>> </rdfs:Class>
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> I believe it is useful to present an integrated RDFS description of 
>>> both sets of classes and properties, since people can never remember 
>>> which lives where, and the rest of the RDFS spec also describes both.
>>>
>>> So question is how to describe this in Appendix A. How about this:
>>>
>>> "An RDF description of the RDF Core vocabulary is given here in RDF/XML
>>> serialization syntax."
>>> ->
>>> "An RDFS description of the http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
>>> and http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema# vocabularies is given here 
>>> in RDF/XML syntax."
>>>
>>> Kinda ugly, but perhaps less contentious?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
>> 202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
>> mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 1 August 2003 16:21:32 GMT

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