- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 22 Nov 2002 11:04:26 -0600
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
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