Re: Draft rdf.rdf

Jos De_Roo wrote:
> Right, I also believe that rdf.rdf is correct.
> I checked it with Cwm and Jena and compared it
> with what we assumed and found one difference
> which is
>   rdf:predicate rdfs:range rdf:Property .
> where we had
>   rdf:predicate rdfs:range rdfs:Resource .
> which we took from the "RDFS axiomatic triples" table
> in the "RDF Semantics Editors Draft July 31"
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#rdfs_interp
> I propose that the more precise triple is in the MT
> (both the table and the LBase translation).

That looks plausible.  Pat?

Brian

> 
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
> 
> 
>                                                                                                                                         
>                       "Ralph R. Swick"                                                                                                  
>                       <swick@w3.org>            To:       Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>                                           
>                       Sent by:                  cc:       rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>                                              
>                       w3c-rdfcore-wg-req        Subject:  Re: Draft rdf.rdf                                                             
>                       uest@w3.org                                                                                                       
>                                                                                                                                         
>                                                                                                                                         
>                       2003-08-06 08:25                                                                                                  
>                       PM                                                                                                                
>                                                                                                                                         
>                                                                                                                                         
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:52 AM 8/6/2003 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
>>I have attached such a draft.
> 
> 
> Looks good, Brian.   (I didn't review it for completeness.)
> 
> 
>> It is a cut down version of rdfs.rdf with:
>>
>> - a new comment inserted to describe the document
> 
> 
> Why not put that text inside a dc:description property?
> 
> 
>>It uses only syntax defined in M&S, specifically, xml:base is not used.
> 
> Ralph considered this important, at least until we get to rec.
> 
> Yes, since you want to keep the original namespace name
> I feel that it would be inappropriate to use new syntax in any
> RDF content at that namespace URI until at least Proposed Rec.
> 
> 
>>Differences from the document at currently at the rdf namespace URI are:
>>
>> - labels are included for all terms
>> - the comments are consistent with those used in RDFS.rdf and the
> 
> current specs
> 
>> - an Owl ontology element has been added
>> - the list vocabulary rdf:List, rdf:nil, rdf:first and rdf:rest has been
> 
> added
> 
>> - the rdf:XMLLiteral class has been added.
>> - domain and ranges for rdf:value are specified for all properties
>> - there is an rdfs:subClassOf property for all classes
>> - there is an rdfs:isDefinedBy property for all terms
> 
> 
> All good things to have added.  We didn't do it in the original
> content as RDFS wasn't available to us at the time.
> 
> Thanks very much for doing this task, Brian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 7 August 2003 06:29:45 UTC