Re: RDF Schema abstract

On 28-11-13 09:52, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On 28 November 2013 05:00, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>> To me, the idea that entities and relationships were invented by Peter Chen in 1958 is a bit like saying that Bill Gates invented numbers. But more seriously, see below
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm doing the final changes on the RDF Schema draft. I wanted to run one thing first by the WG, namely the one-sentence abstract of what RDF Schema is.
>>>
>>> One option is to take the characterization given in the Semantics document:
>>>
>>>   RDF Schema extends RDF to a larger vocabulary with more
>>>   complex semantic constraints.
>>>
>>> However, I think using the term "vocabulary" in this way will confuse people with a data-modelling background. Taking a data-modelling perspective RDF Schema should probably be seen as a Enhanced Entity Relationship data-modelling language [1]. I therefore propose the following abstract:
>>>
>>>   RDF Schema provides a data-modelling vocabulary for RDF data.
>>
>> I know this says "a" rather than "the", but its being in the spec surely suggests that RDFS is somehow singled out as being the correct or primary or basic data-modelling vocabulary, which is potentially misleading. Suggest a slight modification along these lines:
>>
>>> RDF Schema provides a simple data-modelling vocabulary for RDF data. Other publications, including SKOS [ ] and the W3C Recommendation OWL2 [ ], define more elaborate data models which extend RDFS in various ways.
>
> The current REC http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ says
>
> "This specification does not attempt to enumerate all the possible
> forms of vocabulary description that are useful for representing the
> meaning of RDF classes and properties. Instead, the RDF vocabulary
> description strategy is to acknowledge that there are many techniques
> through which the meaning of classes and properties can be described.
> Richer vocabulary or 'ontology' languages such as DAML+OIL, W3C's
> [OWL] language, inference rule languages and other formalisms (for
> example temporal logics) will each contribute to our ability to
> capture meaningful generalizations about data in the Web. RDF
> vocabulary designers can create and deploy Semantic Web applications
> using the RDF vocabulary description language 1.0 facilities, while
> exploring richer vocabulary description languages that share this
> general approach."
>
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-schema/index.html
> doesn't have this.

Hmm, probably wrong to comment that paragraph out. Will undo and edit a 
bit.
Guus

>
> The original point of RDFS was to do provide an approach that could be
> in some sense compatible with more ambitious alternate efforts.
>
> Typo "provides a data-mdelling vocabulary" -> "provides a
> data-modelling vocabulary"
>
> I can't very well complain as I've not had much time to contribute
> here! But just wanted to note that "a" rather than "the" is in the
> spirit of RDFS. We probably don't need a reference to DAML+OIL.
>
> I should also note that schema.org's very widely used vocabulary uses
> custom type/property associations ('rangeIncludes', 'domainIncludes');
> imho it is important that RDFS continue to provide a foundation for
> alternate ways of describing RDF classes and properties.
>
> Dan
>
> ps. re ER and RDF, there was a schema-vs-schema crisis meeting some
> years ago, in which RDF and XML agreed to disagree. The outcome was
> this report, http://www.w3.org/TR/schema-arch#background which noted
> "RDF is a W3C recommendation which already employs this layered
> approach. RDF is a member of the Entity-Relationship modelling family
> in which data structured as directed labelled graphs can be exchanged
> via XML documents using a specific XML grammar;" (signatories
> including Peter Chen, Bootstrap Alliance)
>
>
>>> Feedback appreciated.
>>>
>>> Guus
>>>
>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_entity%E2%80%93relationship_model
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
>> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
>> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Received on Thursday, 28 November 2013 10:18:18 UTC