- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 13:38:45 -0500
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-archive@w3.org>
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