W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > October 2001

RDF Schema questions

From: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>
Date: 07 Oct 2001 20:05:29 +0200
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-ID: <m3k7y75nrq.fsf@lambda.garshol.priv.no>

I am currently creating an RDF schema, and have found this relatively
straightforward, once I figured out how to represent properties
outside the class definitions. There were some things I had problems
with, however.

I assume that it is allowed to have more than one RDF statement in the
same model where the subject and the predicate are the same? If so, is
there any logical difference between using a bag and just using a set
of duplicate property assignments? Are there any practical
differences, for example in terms of convenience?

Also, when declaring a schema, are there any benefits to declaring a
bag instead of an ordinary property, beyond clarity of intention?
Is there any way to constrain the cardinality the assignments to an
RDF property, whether a container or an ordinary property?

Does anyone know of a good RDF Schema tutorial?

Is DAML simply a schema language that extends RDF Schema, or is it
more than that? Or even something completely different? Does anyone
know of a good DAML tutorial? (I've read
http://edge.mcs.drexel.edu/GICL/howto/DAML/DAML.htm.)

Another question is the status of the RDF Schema specification. Its
review period ended 2000-06-15, and yet it is still a candidate
recommendation, well over a year later. What is happening with it?

My last question is not really related to RDF Schema: are RDF
statements also statements about the objects? That is, if I say
(word-A, similar-to, word-B), should I then also make the opposite
statement lest I imply that while A is similar to B, B is not similar
to A?

A related question is: how easy is it to traverse RDF statements
backwards in RDF tools? Even if the semantics of RDF do not require me
to make the similar-to statement both ways, should I do it anyway for
reasons of convenience?

--Lars M.
Received on Sunday, 7 October 2001 14:05:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT