Re: [closed] Re: pfps-25 schema semantics

These problems appear to have been addressed satisfactorily.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies


From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Subject: [closed] Re: pfps-25 schema semantics
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:02:06 -0400

> Per previous discussion and confirmed in 
> RDF Core WG telecon of June 6th,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jun/0067.html 
> this issue is now marked as closed.
> 
> Peter,
> 
> Please reply to this message as to whether this response is
> satisfactory, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org. Thanks again for 
> your comments.
> 
> Dan
> 
> * Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> [2003-05-24 11:23+0100]
> > 
> > Pat, Peter,
> > 
> > I think the Schema Doc and the semantics doc are now in sync on these so 
> > I'm proposing a formal motion to close below.  Please let us know if 
> > there's a problem I missed.
> > 
> > ------------
> > 
> > RDFCore,
> > 
> > Sitting together, Danbri and I have been reviewing issue
> > 
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-25
> > 
> > that concerns a number of discrepancies between the schema doc and the 
> > semantics doc.
> > 
> > The first point is:
> > 
> > [[
> > - Schema states ``Each instance of rdfs:Datatype is a subclass of
> >   rdfs:Literal'', but this is only a consequence of D-interpretations, not
> >   RDFS-interpretations.
> > ]]
> > 
> > The current editors draft of the semantics doc
> > 
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#rdfs_interp
> > 
> > now says that this relationship is a consequence of RDFS - 
> > interpretations.  Pat please can you confirm this.
> > 
> > [[
> > - Schema states ``rdf:XMLLiteral is an instance of rdfs:Datatype and a
> >   subclass of rdfs:Literal''.   The second part of this is not even a
> >   consequence of D-interpretations.
> > ]]
> > 
> > These assertions are now also included in RDFS interpretations as stated in 
> > the editors draft of the semantics doc:
> > 
> >   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#rdfs_interp
> > 
> > Pat - confirm?
> > 
> > [[
> > - Schema states
> > 	``The rdfs:domain of rdf:type is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:label is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:comment is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:comment is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:member is rdfs:Resource.''   @@@@@@
> > 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:member is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:first is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:range of rdf:subject is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:range of rdf:resource is rdf:Property.''
> > I presume Peter meant the range of rdf:Predicate is rdf:Property
> > 	``The rdfs:range of rdf:object is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:seeAlso is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:seeAlso is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:isDefinedBy is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:isDefinedBy is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:domain of rdfs:value is rdfs:Resource.''
> > 	``The rdfs:range of rdfs:value is rdfs:Resource.''
> >   but none of these are consequences of RDFS-interpretations.  (Well,
> >   actually Semantics is vague about most of these, as there is a vague
> >   addendum to the conditions on RDFS-interpretations that indicates that
> >   some domain and range assertions ``may be taken to be rdfs:Resource''.
> >   In my view this vagueness is inappropriate for the definition of
> >   RDFS-interpretations.)
> > ]]
> > 
> > Semantics is no longer vague about these.  It specifies them as above, 
> > except that the one marked @@@@@ is incorrectly stated.
> > 
> > Propose:
> > 
> >   1) modify the semantics document to state that the rdfs:domain of 
> > rdfs:member is rdfs:Resource.
> >   2) that the current semantics editors WD, modified as per 1) addresses 
> > this comment
> > 
> > Brian

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 15:18:20 UTC