- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:39:02 +0300
- To: ext Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-06-11 2:17, "ext Eric Miller" <em@w3.org> wrote: > > 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> I'm in favor of this. > 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"/> I'm strongly opposed to this. Firstly, this is a narrower definition as defined in M&S (and I'm not convinced that this narrower definition was what M&S was intended to say) and that narrower definition is contrary to present usage based on the broader M&S definition -- i.e. things will break (see Aaron's recent post of examples). Secondly, given the definition of the rdfs:Schema class, it is unneccesary, since one may clearly express that the defining resource is an RDF schema. Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 04:12:04 UTC