- From: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
- Date: 10 Jun 2002 18:17:16 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2002-06-10 at 12:28, Graham Klyne wrote: > At 11:01 AM 6/10/02 -0500, Eric Miller wrote: > >A couple of open issues come to mind... > > > >- do we formally give a name to a schema resource rather than let > >different communities define them (this request has surfaced from the DC > >community working on Registries). As was mentioned on the telecon, this > >approach may be useful for clarifying the relationship between rdf > >Schemas and Web Ontologies (e.g. rdfs:Schema subclassof web:Ontology) > > > >my suggestion would be 'yes' > > > >- do we formalize the range rdfs:isDefinedBy to be one of these schema > >resources > > I'm a little uncomfortable with what this might be saying, but I'd be happy > if we can describe the schema resource referenced by rdfs:isDefinedBy as: > > [[ > An RDF document containing defining information about some RDF vocabulary > (i.e. about some RDF properties and classes). > ]] Yes. And I'm further suggesting that we formally write this concept down so that others can use in their descriptions (e.g.): so to be clear, the suggestion is to add: <rdfs:Class rdf:ID="Schema"> <rdfs:label>RDF Schema</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment>An RDF document containing defining information about some RDF vocabulary (i.e. about some RDF properties and classes)</rdfs:comment> </rdfs:Class> and change: <rdf:Property ID="isDefinedBy"> <rdf:type resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/> <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#seeAlso"/> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">isDefinedBy</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">esDéfiniPar</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment>Indicates a resource containing and defining the subject resource.</rdfs:comment> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Resource"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Resource"/> </rdf:Property> -- ala http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema to... <rdf:Property rdf:ID="isDefinedBy"> <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="#seeAlso"/> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">isDefinedBy</rdfs:label> <rdfs:label xml:lang="fr">esDéfiniPar</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment>Indicates a resource containing and defining the subject resource.</rdfs:comment> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Schema"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Resource"/> </rdf:Property> <!-- note I'd suggest clarifying the comment --> or is this level of formalism the part you're uncomfortable with? > What I want to avoid doing here is (a) creating an idea that a schema is > somehow apart from the wider body of RDF data, and (b) that a schema > contains only statements based on the RDFS-defined vocabulary (rdfs:range, > rdfs:domain, etc.). I absolutely agree. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. -- eric miller http://www.w3.org/people/em/ semantic web activity lead http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ w3c world wide web consortium http://www.w3.org/
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 18:14:51 UTC