W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2002

Re: RDF vocabulary definitions

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:12:22 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021121205348.02e7d4d0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@cdepot.net>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "David Menendez" <zednenem@psualum.com>

At 11:17 21/11/2002 -0800, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>Brian
>My comments are in the attached file, mcbride.txt

Richard,

The first line of your suggested replacement takes the original:

   [[Resources may be divided into groups called classes]]

and replaces it with

   [[Resources may be divided into hierarchical groups called classes.]]

You then note that its not really a hierarchy, its a lattice.  Which is 
also wrong by the way.  There can be loops.

I'm afraid that suggesting replacement text which is just wrong, and you 
know to be wrong, isn't all that helpful.  Nor are the references to terms 
such as metaclasses, contexts, class names etc which are simply not part of 
RDFS .

Please bear in mind that we are trying to describe RDFS here, not something 
else you may have in mind.

You have picked up an point that might be better expressed, for which thanks:

   [[The group of resources that are RDF Schema classes is itself a class 
called
rdfs:Class.]]

might better be

   [[RDF schema classes are members of the class rdfs:Class.]]

You have stated that:

  [[ll classes are subclasses of themselves.
<<this is true, but RDF Schema should use proper subsets instead of subsets.
Using subsets logically permits such absurdities as: the set of all men is
identical to the set of all animals.>>]]

I'm intrigued by that one.  We have a major flaw if that is true.  Care to 
explain?

Brian
Received on Thursday, 21 November 2002 16:11:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:57 GMT