W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > March 2003

Fwd: Issue #webont-01 rename rdf schema

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 19:07:11 -0500
Message-Id: <p05200f62ba86fba8d6de@[]>
To: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

>X-Sender: europe1\bwm@localhost
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:42:18 +0000
>To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
>From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>Subject: Issue #webont-01 rename rdf schema
>X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
>X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 required=5.0
>	tests=IN_REP_TO,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02
>	version=2.43
>Many thanks for webont's efforts in reviewing the RDFCore specs.
>>i. Design of rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:parseType="Literal":
>>The full integration of this feature of RDF into OWL necessitates that the
>>denotation in the domain of discourse be fully defined by the source RDF/XML
>>file. We therefore request that you remove sufficient 
>>implementation variability to ensure that this is the case.  An 
>>example fix would be to require an RDF/XML parser to use a specific 
>>canonicalization on input.
>I think this is the same issue as
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#reagle-01
>I have added webont as a co-submitter.
>>ii.Constraints on rdf:parsetype="Collection"
>>We would prefer that rdf:parsetype="Collection" would be allowed to 
>>be a list of datatype literals, not just a list of RDF node 
>>elements. This, would permit some constructs in OWL that are 
>>difficult under the current design.
>I think this is the same comment as
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#hendler-01
>Again I have recorded webont as a co-submitter.
>>WOWG comments on the RDF Concepts Document
>>We believe the RDF Concepts Document is a useful document and 
>>helpful in understanding RDF and its use.  However, out Working 
>>Group did have some concerns with respect to the issue of social 
>>meaning as discussed in this document.
>>The Web Ontology WG has mixed views on this issue and could not 
>>agree on a specific consensus response in the time available. 
>>However, we note that a number of participants in the Web Ontology 
>>WG have serious reservations about the RDF view on the social 
>>meaning of RDF.
>>We did reach consensus to request that the wording in the RDF 
>>Schema and the RDF Concepts documents be rephrased to explain this 
>>issue, and particularly its impact, more clearly, as this has 
>>ramifications on other languages, such as OWL, which are extensions 
>>to RDF.
>This issue is recorded as
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-14
>As before, I have recorded webont as a co-submitter.
>>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).
>I see not comments from Raphael.
>>  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 
>This comment has been recorded as
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#webont-01
>RDFCore will consider this and respond in due course.
>>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.
>This has been recorded as
>   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#horrocks-01
>As webont did not reach consensus, I have not added webont as a 
>co-submitter, but we are aware that Ian is not alone in his concern.
>>WOWG comments on the RDF Semantics document
>>We believe that the intended design of the semantics, as reflected 
>>in the LC documents, is such that OWL will be able to layer 
>>appropriately. However, we have a number of concerns that need to 
>>be addressed to improve the document and, in particular, to fix 
>>some apparent inconsistencies in the current document.
>>Herman ter Horst of our group has prepared a detailed review of 
>>this document itemizing inconsistencies he has found.  The Web 
>>Ontology WG has asked Herman and the editor of our Semantics 
>>Document (Peter Patel-Schneider) to help insure that the final RDF 
>>Semantics document fixes the inconsistencies and editorial issues 
>>that are identified.
>Many thanks to Herman, Peter and others who are helping to improve 
>the semantics document.  I believe no specific action is needed here 
>by RDFCore other than to respond to the comments made by Herman and 
>Thanks for all your efforts Jim.  If you have any concerns, let me know.

Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2003 19:07:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:43 UTC