- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:20:05 +0300
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-06-12 20:35, "ext patrick hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> 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'. Would you like to suggest a word to use other than 'define' that fits into the above text? >> 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. It certainly is. It's saying that it is not simply an RDF/XML instance or some other schema. It's being very explicit that it *can* be anything, even if frequent practice favors one particular type of resource. 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 Thursday, 13 June 2002 04:15:54 UTC