- From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:35:36 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-06-11 10:29, "ext Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> >wrote: > >> >> On 2002-06-10 19:01, "ext Eric Miller" <em@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> Now that i'm back online, I see Patrick's suggestion... >>> >>> On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 11:15, Patrick Stickler wrote: >>> >>>> My specific recommendations are: >>>> >>>> 1. Leave the definition of rdfs:isDefinedBy as is, though removing >>>> the incorrect language about namespaces, allowing any instance >>>> of rdf:Resource and multiple statements. >>>> >>>> 2. Qualify objects of rdfs:isDefinedBy by class, in the case of >>>> RDF/XML instances, by the proposed rdfs:Schema class. This permits >>>> those who want/need to, to be explicit about the nature of the >>>> defining resource. >>>> >>>> 3. Clearly state that there is no functional relationship between >>>> the URI of a term and the namespace URI used in its RDF/XML >>>> serialization -- that the RDF model is based on URIs, not >>>> qnames, and as such, namespaces have no significance whatsoever. >>> >>> yep, i believe we're saying similar things. >>> >>> Patrick, have you taken a crack at this rewording? >> >> Not yet, but I would be happy to do so prior to Friday's telecon. > >Here goes: > ><rdfs:Property rdf:about="&rdfs;isDefinedBy"> > <rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:resource="&rdfs;seeAlso"/> > <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Resource"/> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Resource"/> > <rdfs:comment> > This property indicates a resource which fully or partially > defines the subject resource. I insist that we do not put this into a spec unless we also say something about what we mean by 'define'. That word has no formal meaning in an assertional language like RDF and RDFS, and it is a very dangerous word to use casually. (For example, the difference between a simple contradiction and a very nasty paradox turns on the distinction between 'assert' and 'define', and this has been a central issue in the Webont layering problems.). I would prefer to avoid the use of the 'define' word altogether if we possibly can, particularly when used with 'resource'. >The subject of this property > can be any instance of rdfs:Resource and may have as its > value any rdfs:Resource. Why bother saying that? *Everything* is an instance of rdfs:Resource, so this isn't saying anything. >The most common anticipated usage > is to relate a vocabulary term to an instance of rdfs:Schema > containing defining information about that term. > </rdfs:comment> ></rdfs:Property> > ><rdfs:Class rdf:about="&rdfs;Schema"> > <rdfs:comment> > An RDF/XML instance. > </rdfs:comment> ></rdf:Class> > >(and no, I don't consider the definition of rdfs:Schema to be > too narrow; folks can still point to N3 instances if they like, > but an rdfs:Schema is a standard serialization of RDF statements) > >Cheers, > >Patrick > >-- > >Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 >Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 >Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 13:35:39 UTC