- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:12:02 -0600
- To: <lagoze@cs.cornell.edu>, <dc-architecture@jiscmail.ac.uk>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
lagoze@cs.cornell.edu <lagoze@cs.cornell.edu> wrote: > 1. My reading of the rdf schema documentation says that Stefan's > suggestion to use rdfs:label for the expression of a default value is > very conventional. As stated in 5.2 of rdf schema, rdfs:label: "This is > used to provide a human-readable version of a resource name". The > examples throughout the document are multi-language labels for > definition, which seems to have nothing to do with the purpose for which > Stephan is using it. I don't follow -- why is this so? It seems that the usage is just fine. > 3. Of special concern for the dc-architecture folks, I'm still concerned > that the hanging of that arbitrary information off a intermediate node > associated attached to a dc property says espresses that the arbitrary > information is indeed a value of the dc property. I once again refer you to the argument in: http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0102&L=dc-architecture&P=27229 > My reading is that Stu is suggesting a violation of > RDF schema which says that: First, one cannot be in "violation" of a schema, one merely has something which it cannot model. > A property can have at most one range property. It is possible for it to > have no range, in which case the class of the property value is > unconstrained. Second, this is widely-believed to be a bug and is expected to be soon changed. > That is, I can't write a schema that says a dc property can have a range > that is either a rdfs:literal or an intermediate node. Third, I believe that leaving the schema unconstrained would have the same effect since an intermediate node is a resource and the union of resources and literals covers (to my knowledge) all possible properties in RDF. > If we can't express this with an rdf schema then we are left with the a > rather uncomfortable situation for both the dc community and the rdf > community, both of whom want to see a common use of technologies. Even if this was an issue, we could simply omit this constraint from the RDF schema. There is no need for a schema to include all constraints -- even the schema for RDF Schema itself is missing several constraints which are unrepresentable! -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Friday, 23 February 2001 18:12:14 UTC