proposed closure of Issue pfps-11 (rdfs:comment implies entailments no) from Dan Brickley on 2003-05-24 (w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from May 2003) (original) (raw)

Brian and I are discussing ways of clarifying the RDFS doc to close issue pfps-11, 'rdfs:comment implies entailments'.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-11

raised: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0145.html

summary: [[ We agree that the schema document uses the same form of words for specifying, for example, rdf:type for which there are semantic conditions expressed in the model theory document, and say rdfs:comment for which no (or very much weaker) semantic conditions are expressed in the model theory document.

You are concerned that this might mislead a reader into thinking that there are model theoretic consequences that are not specified in the semantics document as illustrated in the Cretan example given above. ]]

We propose the adddition of a clarifying sentence to http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_comment in the main paragraph concerning rdfs:comment.

After 'Since RDF vocabularies are expressed as RDF graphs, vocabularies defined in other namespaces may be used to provide richer documentation.' ...add: 'Note that there are no model-theoretic consequences entailed by any assertions represented in the value of the rdfs:comment.'

Dan

Received on Saturday, 24 May 2003 05:30:26 UTC