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

proposed closure take 2 Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:51:55 -0400
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030916205155.GB21203@w3.org>

resending to correct list...

----- Forwarded message from Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> -----

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:14:02 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Subject: proposed closure take 2 Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)
Message-ID: <20030829131402.GD20784@w3.org>
Resent-From: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Resent-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:14:15 -0400 (EDT)


* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-08-01 10:00-0400]
> From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)
> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:00:49 -0400
> 
> > * Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> [2003-06-18 14:18-0400]
> > > From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> > > Subject: Re: proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no)
> > > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:50:29 -0400
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > > This response does not satisfactorily address even the summary of
> > > > > my comment.  How can it, as the summary uses rdfs:commment as only
> > > > > an example of where the RDF Semantics document goes beyond the RDF
> > > > > semantics?  Other examples include rdfs:label, rdf:first, rdf:rest,
> > > > > rdf:List, rdf:Alt, rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object, and
> > > > > rdfs:isDefinedBy.  I note that recent changes to the RDF semantics
> > > > > have added rdfs:Datatype to this category.  There may also be
> > > > > others - with so many examples, it is entirely possible that I have
> > > > > missed some.
> 
> > > > > A solution to the general problem of the RDF Schema document promising more
> > > > > than is delivered is needed, not just a solution to one example of the
> > > > > problem.
> > > > 
> > > > Peter,
> > > > 
> > > > re http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0233.html
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for your comments on our suggested closure of this issue. I have an 
> > > > action from RDFCore's June 6th meeting[1] to ask whether there are specific 
> > > > textual changes to the RDFS document that you would prefer. If you could offer 
> > > > some suggestions, perhaps we can find a way of closing this issue.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > Dan
> > > > 
> > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0067.html
> > > 
> > > Well, the most recent version of the RDF Schema document that I have access
> > > to is the last-call version.  I am not particularly interested in supplying
> > > wording changes for an out-of-date version of the document.  If you want
> > > some suggestions send me the current version of the document.
> > 
> > Peter,
> > 
> > re http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-11
> > 
> > I believe the current editors copy of RDF Schema is up to date with all
> > our Last Call issues and other substantive editorial changes, with the 
> > exception of this issue, pfps-11 "rdfs:comment implies entailments". We
> > currently have no proposal on the table for closing this issue; your
> > editorial suggestions on this matter would be very welcome.
> > 
> > Editor's working copy: 
> > 	http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/
> > 
> > It is a while since this was initially raised, and the Semantics
> > document has gone through various edits. Is it possible that your
> > concern has been addressed in that document, and that we could wrap up
> > pfps-11 through adding an appropriate cross-reference to Semantics?
> 
> No, my concerns have not yet been addressed.  
> 
> For example, the wording about rdf:Statement indicates that rdf:Statement
> is the class of RDF statements, which are made by RDF triples.  This goes
> far, far beyond what rdf:Statement actually provides.
> 
> Here is some proposed text

The Editor's draft at
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/
has been updated to reword the RDF reification vocab section, based on a
combination of your suggestions with text from Pat and Frank. We propose 
to close this LC issue with this rewording. Could you reply to this
message letting us know whether your concerns are now addressed.

Many thanks,

Dan

> 5.3.1 rdf:Statement
> 
> rdf:Statement is an instance of rdfs:Class.
> 
> rdf:Statement is the domain of the properties rdf:predicate, rdf:subject
> and rdf:object.  Different individual rdf:Statement instances may have the
> same values for their rdf:predicate, rdf:subject and rdf:object properties.
> 
> 5.3.2 rdf:subject
> 
> A triple of the form
> 	S rdf:subject R .
> states that the rdf:subject of S is R.
> 
> The rdfs:domain of rdf:subject is rdf:Statement.  The rdfs:range of
> rdf:subject is rdfs:Resource.
> 
> [and so on]
> 
> Other changes
> 
> 5.4.2 rdfs:isDefinedBy
> 
> ... that may be used to indicate ...
> 
> A triple of the form 
> 	S rdfs:isDefinedBy O .
> states that the some aspect of the resource O might provide defining
> information about S.
> 
> 
> 
> > Regarding the related issue (it was raised in the same thread) "Lists 
> > are not well formed", the rdf:List and related vocabulary has been 
> > re-described using a form of words based on our agreement in 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0277.html
> > new text is now in section 5.2 RDF Collections, starting at:
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/#ch_collectionvocab
> > If you could take a look at this I'd be grateful.
> 
> This looks much better, except the stuff about L rdf:rest rdf:nil implying
> that L ``has one item''.  It would be much better to say that this means
> that the rest-of-list of L is empty.
> 
> > cheers,
> > 
> > Dan
> 
> peter

----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 16:51:56 GMT

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