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

Re: status of RDF, RDFS, and OWL ``namespace files''

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 10:03:54 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030103100157.00ac4b70@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 00:56 03/01/2003 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

>On Thu, 2003-01-02 at 21:30, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > Hi:
> >
> > What is the status of
> >       http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns
> >       http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema
> > Are they normative parts of the RDF specifications?
>
>I believe the latter is a normative part of the RDFS
>spec; i.e. its contents are part of the tech report.

Yes.


>That's not the case for the former.
>
> >   I don't see how, because
> >
> > 1/ Neither of them are valid in the RDF Model Theory or the RDFS model 
> theory.
>
>No?
>What leads you to that conclusion?
>
>The model theory spec defines validity of inferences; what
>does it mean for a document to be valid? Oh... do you
>mean that they're not entailed by the empty graph?
>
>Good point; I think that's a bug, for RDFS; i.e. the
>rdfs:comment's and such need to be consistent in
>the 01/rdf-schema file and the text of the RDFS spec;

Danbri picked up on that.  The current drafts of both have the 
rdfs:comment's identical.

Brian
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 05:02:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT