W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Primer synch with other documents

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 20:05:52 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b17b9ee29155317@[]>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>pat hayes wrote:
>>>Just a notification that I'm going to change the Primer references 
>>>to be  the same as those in both the Syntax and Concepts docs 
>>>(e.g., RDF-VOCABULARY instead of RDF-SCHEMA).
>>In the MT I use 'vocabulary' to mean a set of urirrefs (that get 
>>interpreted by an interpretation). The prefixes rdf- , rdfs-, etc, 
>>are used to distinguish different senses of satisfiability, 
>>entailment etc, which refer to different kinds of interpretation. 
>>That means that it would be natural to take 'rdf-vocabulary' to 
>>mean a set of urirefs being interpreted using the RDF 
>>interpretation rules (which in this case means that rdf:Property 
>>and rdf:type have to interpreted correctly, but the rest is peanut 
>>butter). Would that cause any confusion, do you think?
>Well, just to clarify something, what I was talking about wasn't 
>terminology for use in discussion, but merely citations, i.e., now 
>the Primer reference section lists:

Oh, OK.

>RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema , D. Brickley 
>and R. V. Guha, Editors. Work in progress, April 2002. World Wide 
>Web Consortium, 30 April 2002.etc. etc.
>And I'm going to change [RDF-SCHEMA] to [RDF-VOCABULARY].  I'm not 
>(at least, not yet) worried about the meaning of "rdf-vocabulary".
>However, since you've asked, let me see if I've understood you 
>correctly:  you're going to be able to say that a given collection 
>of URIrefs, considered as an "rdf vocabulary", would involve one 
>kind of interpretation, considered as an "rdfs vocabulary", would 
>involve another kind of interpretation, and considered as (say) an 
>"OWL vocabulary" would involve yet another kind?

That was what I was suggesting, but I would rather not do this, in 
fact, so if there is no pressing need to do so (which I thought there 
was, but that was a misunderstanding)., then I won't. As you note 
below, it could get confusing.


>  That seems reasonable. There might need to be some discussion 
>somewhere to point out, for example, that with this definition of 
>"vocabulary", vocabulary defined in the "RDF Vocabulary Description 
>Language" could sometimes appear in non-rdf vocabularies (if you see 
>what I mean):  say, that the term 
>http://www.example.org/classes/Person defined in an RDF Schema might 
>appear in something other than an "rdf vocabulary" in your sense (it 
>might appear in an OWL vocabulary).
>Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
>202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
>mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 21:05:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC