W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: Factoring of entailment regimes (was: Re: Ill-typed vs. inconsistent?)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:59:29 -0500
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <366093F9-C676-4E74-BD17-B7E5E9C8AAB0@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
What I am afraid is the split of the RDFS and the other entailments. Also, I am not sure how it works. You said:

> put those for Simple Entailment and RDF-with-literals Entailment as an appendix into RDF Concepts, and those for RDFS Entailment into RDF Schema

but, at least the current version of the Schema document defines terms both in the RDF and the RDFS namespaces (eg, rdf:Property, or the collections), ie, the differentiation may not be that clean...

Anyway. I am not opposed to this, but I am not convinced either.


On Nov 16, 2012, at 09:50 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 16 Nov 2012, at 14:32, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> I thought we discussed having all the rules in a separate document (as a Note); what is wrong with that?
> The Note informatively describes the semantics of RDF and RDFS. If the Note can be cleanly split in two, and the two parts included as informative material in the documents that define RDF and RDFS, isn't that better in every way?
> SKOS, for example, defines the language and any equivalence/consistency constraints in the same document, and splitting them off into a separate document would seem like a bad idea. The same logic applies to RDFS, IMO.
> FWIW, this would add perhaps one page of content to Concepts and two to Schema, or double that with examples. Would it really be worth having a new document for 3-6 pages of content?
> Best,
> Richard

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 15:00:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:23 UTC