- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 15:44:01 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- cc: ext Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 6 May 2002, Patrick Stickler wrote: > > Item 11: Issue rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0478.html > > > > Aaron's proposed resolution: > > > > - isDefinedBy is a Property > > - it has no further semantics in the RDF Model Theory > > > > - further subclasses of it may be created by others > > - it is out of scope for RDF Core to create these subclasses > > > > No dissent. > > ACCEPTED: tihs proposal was accepted. If I had been there, I would have dissented. I wasn't, and didn't, but for the record I have two problems with the detail (if not the intent) of this resolution. (i) we don't specialise properties with sub-class relations; the correct term is sub-property. these are different relationships in rdf. (ii) it is not out of scope for RDF Core to create these sub-properties, we have merely decided to focus our energies elsewhere. The phrase 'out of scope' shouldn't be over-used for everything we decide not to do. The charter asks us to complete work on RDFS; this could quite plausibly include refinements of rdfs:isDefinedBy based on a better understanding of (for eg) the relationship between RDF Schema and XML Schema, or of the needs of WebOnt (eg. mechanisms such as daml:imports). I don't want this re-opened, but wanted these points on record. A couple more casual comments below. Nothing major. Dan > > The question posed was: should an RDF parser reject the following as > > illegal? > > > > <rdf:Bag rdf:about="http://example.org/foo"> > > <rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.org/a" /> > > <rdf:_1 rdf:resource="http://example.org/b" /> > > </rdf:Bag> > > > > It was decided (no dissent) - > > RESOLUTION: the WG resolves that this is syntactically legal RDF Phew :) One reading: If URIrefs are names, http://example.org/a and http://example.org/b could be names for the same thing. > > AOB#2: isDefinedBy - futhter discussion > > > > The difference between seeAlso and isDefinedBy was discussed. > > FrankM: we're not looking at reopening this, we're soliciting advice as > > to what to say in the primer. One option I discussed face to face with brian: renaming rdfs:isDefinedBy to be called rdfs:ns or rdfs:namespace. We wondered whether doing so might make its purpose more transparent. Not sure.
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 15:44:07 UTC