- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:18:27 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Pat Hayes wrote: > This is a request for guidance from the WG. There are some RDFS > triples that some people think should be true in every rdfs > interpretation, while other people have doubts. The MT itself can be > phrased either way, so we human beings have to decide. They are all > concerned with what might be called RDFS navel-gazing. > > 1 rdfs:ConstraintProperty rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . Since you raise it... I'm coming aroudn to the view that the rdfs:ConstraintResource / Property mechanism doesn't manage to do what we (the old RDFS WG) hoped it would. It is not clear to me what things are 'constraint resources'? I believe we muddled up two ideas and called the resulting thing a 'constraint': - schemas as a technology to support 'validation' as per XML DTDs etc - certain properties/classes having machine-readable semantics My current inclination (which I've not made time to back up with a propsal) would be to drop that entire mechanism from RDFS. > 2. rdfs:comment rdfs:range rdfs:Literal . > > 3. rdfs:label rdfs:range rdfs:Literal . I've not digested the varous recent threads on literals so withhold comment on that. Dan > > Currently 1. is included in the rdfs closure, but the other two are > not. However, Jos' engine and CWM do not generate 1.. Peter P-S > thinks that the RDFS spec states 2 and 3; my own view right now is > that that wording in the spec is better seen as a syntactic > constraint, and shouldn't be stated as a range constraint. But I can > be persuaded. > > Bear in mind that including such triples in a closure can have > knock-on effects on other triples that might be inferrable from these > using other closure rules. > > Anyone got any strong views on any of these one way or the other? > > Pat > >
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:18:27 UTC