- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:32:42 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- cc: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Which is one of several reasons I wish it were just called rdfs:namespace :( dan On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Frank Manola wrote: > > 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 > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 16:32:45 UTC