- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:33:34 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 05:17 PM 2/20/03 -0500, Jim Hendler wrote: >>------------------------------------------- >>WOWG comments on the RDF Schema Document >>-------------------------------------------- >>We believe that the design of the language, as reflected in the LC >>documents, is such that OWL can appropriately use RDF Schema and >>endorse this design. >> >>Raphael Volz of our group has prepared a detailed review of this >>document which he will send to the RDF Core WG. The Web Ontology >>Working Group agrees with the spirit of his review (except for the >>comments on section 4, which was only supported by part of the WG). >>We summarize our main comments below: >> >>i. Although this document is called RDF Schema we think that the >>title "RDF Vocabulary Description Language" would be clearer, and >>make the difference from XML Schema (used for validation) more >>evident. > >I would support such a change (indeed, I thought this was our intent?). > >>ii. Although we did not reach consensus on this, several members >>felt that it was unacceptable that two graphs that differ only in >>their rdfs:comment content would not entail each other. > >Aha! The rdfs:comment rubber hits the road! If you read the Webont archives for 2003 you will see that there is a multi-vehicle pileup, with rescue crews using cutters to try to get the bodies out before the spilt diesel fuel catches fire. > To my view, having G1 entail G2, where G1 and G2 vary only in the >[content of] rdfs:comment statements would be a significant shift in >my understanding of the intent of rdfs:comment. But I also think >that rdf:comment may be unfortunately named, since I could imagine a >view of rdfs:comment that is, by fiat, true in all interpretations. > >As specified, rdfs:comment might be understood as "informal >definition" rather than "something that might be said about". Then why do we have rdfs:isDefinedBy as well as rdfs:comment?? >But the name suggests the latter. > >ALthough this impacts the definition of RDF, it does not do so in a >way that changes any existing software, so this might be a good time >to contemplate renaming rdfs:comment to (say) rdfs:intent, and >changing the semantics so that: > x rdfs:comment "some text" >is true in all RDFS-interpetations. I would be happy with that semantic change, though it strikes me as damn silly. But Ian feels very strongly about this one, and I don't. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 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 Friday, 21 February 2003 15:33:38 UTC