Re: rdf schema notes

Comments on the RDF Schema proposals. Deleted items are ones I 
agree with.

On Thursday, August 2, 2001, at 11:33  AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>      rdfs-constraining-containers: Should it be possible to 
> constrain the
> members of a container to be of a given type?
>
> PROPOSAL: 	* No compelling case has been made for additional 
> features  in 1.0
> 		* We already allow subclasses of the containers
> 		* Other languages (DAML+OIL; WebOnt; Prose...) can 
> express those constraints

I don't believe that DAML+OIL can express the constraint.

Proposal: Create a superproperty of all the 
ContainerMembershipProperties.

>      rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf: Cycles of subClassOf properties are
>      prohibited
>
> PROPOSAL:	* Not critical for next WD
> 		* No change in this draft, but note we're not married to
>                   current design
>

Proposal: Remove the restriction.

>      rdfs-subPropertyOf-semantics: The inheritance semantics of the
>        subPropertyOf relationship needs to be clarified.
>
>
> PROPOSAL:	* Not critical path for next WD; do after Model theory

Strawman: subProperties by default have the same range and 
domain as their parent, but may be overridden with subClasses of 
those.

>      rdfs-versioning: RDF Schema does not deal adequately with 
> versioning.
>
> PROPOSAL:	* known hard problem; defer.

Hard problem?

Simply remove the stupid restriction.

>      rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics: Must the value of an rdfs:isDefinedBy
> property be a schema?
> PROPOSAL: 	not critical path

Strawman: Split it into subproperties: namespace, schema/definition

--
       "Aaron Swartz"      |           Blogspace
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://blogspace.com/about/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> |     weaving the two-way web

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 14:38:49 UTC