W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003


From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 12:07:42 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f28ba6846c8826a@[]>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

>From: "Raphael Volz" <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
>To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
>Cc: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:48:08 -0000
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>Importance: Normal
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0
>	version=2.43
>X-Spam-Level: *
>Hi -
>sorry for writing to you instead of the group but
>I am not allow to post since I am sitting 800 Miles
>up north and the Outlook Web interface cannot be stopped
>from generating HTML instead of plain text.
>RDF Schema Review for WebOnt
>RAphael Volz, FZI, Karlsruhe
>February 6, 2003
>Status of Doc:
>- Differences to 03/27/2000 version
>should be made explicit (e.g. in an Appendix)
>Section 1 (Intro):
>- Why is this language called RDF Schema and
>not RDF Vocabulary Description Language
>- The examples given in RDF PRIMER should also
>be given here (for sake of completeness and to
>facilitate reading and understanding)
>- "This document is intended to provide a clear
>specification to those who find RDF Semantics
>daunting" --> it didn't make things clearer to me, unfortunally...
>- The statement that 1" [...] RDF vocabulary description language
>is similar to a type systems of OO programming languages
>such as Java" is simply wrong and very misleading, the only
>thing common is the use of the word "Class".
>Section 2 (Classes)
>Paragraph 6: "All Datatypes are classes"
>--> Does this mean that it's members can be enumerated ?
>The intention of XMLLiteral is unclear from the
>text, point to appropriate other RDF document or
>explain more.
>-   What does it mean if
>XML Document instance is again valid RDF ?.
>- Say that fully normalized/Canonical XML is required.
>Section 3 (Property)
>Why do you specify two different ELements
>subPropertyOf and  subClassOf
>-3.5. What happesn with domain/range constraints
>stated on super-properties wrt. to subproperties.
>No behavior specified for that.
>Section 4:
>This section is fatal. Why bother with any specification
>or formal semantics at all, when every application is
>allowed to do what it wants anyway. A RDFS does never
>specify limitations on "types of values", instead it
>facilitates lazyness of the user and tries to remedy
>missing information by simply entailing it.
>I thought that the RDF Semantics intention was to say
>how an application should understand RDF data. It
>is also unclear what the semantics of custom vocabulary
>is, does it at least have the same semantics as the
>original vocabulary of which is was derived, e.g.
>if I say myRange subPropertyOf range. If this is not
>the case, why should a write a schema at all, why not
>base the semantics of my application simply on
>string values, why should I bother to tell anyone about
>that semantics ?
>Section 5:
>Does the lack of formal specification on Collections (e.g.
>that Seq represents a total order on it's elements) mean
>that processors may validly ignore i ?
>Section 5.4.3:
>Why do I still need value, why not represent structured
>information as XML using XMLLiteral ?
>General resume:
>The document should clarify whether it endorses a specific
>semantic interpretation or whether it only declares a
>couple of names that others may find useful.
>Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>Best regards,
>Raphael Volz
>Institut AIFB, Universität Karlsruhe
>WIM, FZI Karlsruhe
>Fax: 01212-5-470-17-365

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 12:07:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC