- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:29:29 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
If this is not felt to be actively helpful, I withdraw the comment. I don't feel strongly about it, and there is advantage in making fewer changes. #g -- At 02:33 PM 2/21/03 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>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 ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 12:19:45 UTC