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

Re: [proposal to close] pfps-22,pfps-23: "reserved names in abstract syntax"

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 12:37:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030806.123730.123582827.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: gk@ninebynine.org
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

This wording is much better.  After fixing the link to RDF Syntax it even
meshes pretty well with that.

I do, however, suggest changes to RDF Syntax, Section 5.1. Something along
the lines of

	The RDF vocabulary consists of names from this namespace that are
	used in the RDF specifications.

instead of the last sentence of the first (non-note) paragraph of the
section would make it minimally acceptable.

peter


From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Subject: [proposal to close] pfps-22,pfps-23: "reserved names in abstract syntax"
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 15:38:39 +0100

> Peter,
> 
> Further to your comments recorded as pfps-22,pfps-23:
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-22
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-23
> 
> We discussed this in recent RDF teleconferences, and the text in section 4 
> of the RDF Concepts  and Abstract Syntax document has been revised to focus 
> on the defined meanings/uses for RDF vocabulary rather than saying what 
> cannot be done.  (Also, we separately decided to remove reference to the 
> RDFS namespace, which impacts the same section.)
> 
> The revised text is here:
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-URIspaces
>    (28 July 2003 12:24:17, rcsid 1.34)
> 
> [[
> 4. RDF Vocabulary URI and Namespace (Normative)
> 
> RDF uses URI references to identify resources and properties. Certain URI 
> references are given specific meaning by RDF. Specifically, URI references 
> with the following leading substring are defined by the RDF specifications:
> 
>      * http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# (conventionally 
> associated with namespace prefix rdf:)
> 
> Used with the RDF/XML serialization, this URI prefix string corresponds to 
> XML namespace names [XML-NS] associated with the RDF vocabulary terms.
> 
> Note: this namespace name is the same as that used in the earlier RDF 
> recommendation [RDF-MS].
> 
> Vocabulary terms in the rdf: namespace are listed in section 5.1 of the RDF 
> syntax specification [RDF-SYNTAX]. Some of these terms are defined by the 
> RDF specifications to denote specific concepts. Others have syntactic 
> purpose (e.g. rdf:ID is part of the RDF/XML syntax).
> ]]
> 
> I think these revisions are more consistent with the general 
> (non-normative) position indicated in section 2.2.6.
> 
> Could you please indicate, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, if you feel 
> your issues have been adequately addressed.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> #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 Wednesday, 6 August 2003 12:37:47 GMT

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