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

Re: abstract syntax and RDFS

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:16:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030122.201609.29284344.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: abstract syntax and RDFS
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:42:37 +0100

> On Monday 20 Jan 2003 10:26 pm, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > In conducting my still unfinished review of the mapping rules I noticed
> > that no RDFS schema is an OWL DL document.
> >
> I also missed the following rule from section 4.2
> [[
> the abstract syntax form does not mention any of the URI references from the 
> RDF, RDFS, or OWL namespaces that are given special meaning in RDF, RDFS, or 
> OWL except owl:Thing and owl:Nothing.
> ]] 
> The datatype rdf:XMLLiteral must not be blocked in this way.

I disagree.  I'm very happy that rdf:XMLLiteral is not in OWL Lite or OWL

> I think the following RDF and RDFS properties and classes are cool in 
> annotations and Annotations:
>    rdfs:comment
>    rdfs:label
>    rdfs:seeAlso
>    rdfs:isDefinedBy

I explicitly allowed rdfs:comment and rdfs:label, although I am somewhat
unhappy with allowing rdfs:comment.  I think that rdfs:seeAlso and
rdfs:isDefinedBy have no place in OWL Lite or OWL DL.

> I believe that the annotations and Annotations would benefit from:
> (a) having names that did not differ solely in case


> (b) used a new concept annotationPropertyID for there first URI
> (and further points in another message to come).

I don't see any particular purpose in this.

> Jeremy

Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 20:16:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:50 UTC