Re: 2002-06-17#1 re rdfms-seq-representation in RDFS

On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 09:30, Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
> 
> 2002-06-17#1  danbri  Update RDFS spec to reflect resolution of
>                       rdfms-seq-representation
> 
> With the addition of the lists vocabulary,

pointer please? perhaps this?
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/#ch_containervocab

I have an action to do a test case about rdfs:contains or some such,
and I think it's best to write test cases and review sections
of the spec at the same time...

"The rdfs:Container class is a super-class of the RDF Container
classes, ie. rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq, rdf:Alt."

hmm... better to say that formally, in n-triples, right there?
Perhaps not; but we do say it formally, yes? yes, checking
with cwm, I see we do.

<details>
Hmm...

"This RDF/XML is also available as a separate RDF/XML document
(rdfs-namespace.xml). It is not currently published at the W3C RDF
Schema namespace URI."

why not? (not critical)

"the 1999 RDF Model and Syntax specification"
add a citation/reference.

% python cwm.py --rdf
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/rdfs-namespace.xml --n3
gives...

    rdf:Alt     a :Class;
         :subClassOf :Container .

</details>


Odd... I also see...
    rdf:Alt     a :Class;
         :comment "A collection of alternatives.";

er... rdf:Alt is a collection/class of collections of alternatives, no?

Is that comment synchronized with the text of the spec? No...
"The rdf:Alt class represents RDF's 'Alt' container construct, and is a
subclass of rdfs:Container."

Let's please synchronize those. CRITICAL.
The schema spec should cite the relevant section of the syntax
spec, and the rdfs-namespace.xml thingy should point, via
seeAlso or isDefinedBy, to it.

  2.15 Container membership property elements - rdf:li and rdf:_n
 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20021108/#section-Syntax-list-elements


My brain feels the need for an example... let's see... we
keep those in the primer... the relevant section seems
to be...

  4.1. Representing Groups of RDF Resources
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-primer-20021111/#containers

er... why "Groups" rather than Collections?

If Group is used rather than Collection because Lists
aren't collections, then this figure in the primer is busted:

 Figure 16: An RDF Collection (list structure) 
 http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/#ch_alt

Let's see... my test case action was from 9 Apr
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0406.html

I think it's

	_:these rdf:_1 _:this.
	=rdfs-entails=>
	_:these rdfs:member _:this.

hmm.... the way you worded the schema spec
"each numbered container membership property has a rdfs:subPropertyOf
relationship to the property rdfs:member" suggests

	(empty)
	=rdfs-entails=>
	rdf:_1 rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member.

hmm... is that in the model theory spec?

yes... seems to be...

  If x is in ICEXT(I(rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty)) then
     <x,I(rdfs:member)> is in IEXT(I(rdfs:subPropertyOf))

  rdf:_1 rdf:type  rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .
  rdf:_2 rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty .
  ...

Jan, is that enough for you to make those two into
real tests? i.e. you wanna help me do the hard part
of "2002-04-19#14 danc  do entailement test case for container with
rdfs:contains" please?

I really should get set up to check the details of
the manifest and all that, but I'm just not there yet.


> I believe this ACTION is
> discharged.

Mostly, yes, but not quite to my satisfaction.
The correspondence between the rdfs:comments and
the text of the spec is CRITICAL, to me, as is
a link from the specification of rdfs:Alt/Seq/Bag
to the syntax spec.

> seealso http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-seq-representation
> 
> Dan
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 12:04:32 UTC