- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:03:15 -0400
- To: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat-- How about some suggestions for what we ought to mean by "define"? Especially since it's hard to avoid the use of "define" when trying to describe "isDefinedBy". --Frank patrick hayes wrote: > > >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 > > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 16:05:30 UTC