- From: Matthieu Bosquet <matthieu@cognithive.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 13:02:17 +0000
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHxabGGEkPgkRTB0-UtY_aUN-Rsx6z9BMoVUT1it=dTRqoYkYQ@mail.gmail.com>
The specific quote from "RDF Schema 1.1 - 5.3.3 rdf:predicate <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_predicate>" I am referring to states the following: --- A triple of the form: S rdf:predicate P states that S is an instance of rdf:Statement <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_statement>, that P is an instance of rdf:Property <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_property> and that the predicate of S is P. --- More specifically: "...P is an instance of rdf:Property <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_property>". My understanding is that this section describes which statements can be inferred from one asserted statement of the form "S rdf:predicate P"; one of which would be "P a rdf:Property"; which I believe means that the range of rdf:predicate should be rdf:Property (which is not only contrary to the default serialisation of the RDF ontology <http://w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>, but also to the following sentence that you quoted). I also think that many foolish things can be said and it's a good thing that, if anything, entailment helps realising how foolish the things said are. On 17 Dec 2021, at 10:29, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org> wrote: On 17/12/2021 00:04, Matthieu Bosquet wrote: I'm reaching out because I think you might be able to help or point me in the right direction to fix what I think is a mistake in the default serialisation of the RDF ontology dereferenceable at http:// w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# <https://t.co/2fWsLy0dpC>. According to RDF Schema 1.1, I think the rdfs:range of rdf:predicate should be rdf:Property as per https://w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_predicate <https://t.co/hN2YnAwnhv>. The section you are pointing to states "rdf:predicate is an instance of rdf:Property <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_property>" meaning rdf:predicate is *itself* an instance of rdf:Property. This sentence is not about the values of rdf:predicate... The same section states, a little below: "The rdfs:domain <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_domain> of rdf:predicate is rdf:Statement <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_statement> and the rdfs:range <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_range> is rdfs:Resource <https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_resource>." which is consistent with the RDF description of the RDF vocabulary. Now, of course, I understand why one would expect the range of rdf:predicate to be rdf:Property. But I am not sure this would be a good idea. It would, for example, mean that :someFool :said [ a rdf:Statement ; rdf:subject rdfs:Class ; rdf:predicate rdfs:Class ; rdf:object rdfs:Class ; ]. would RDFS-entail rdfs:Class a rdf:Property. which does not seem desirable. best The current range is rdfs:Resource in the default serialization at http:// w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns# <https://t.co/2fWsLy0dpC>. I know it's non-normative, but it seems like something that could be nice to fix. Kind regards, Matthieu
Received on Friday, 17 December 2021 14:31:44 UTC