----------------------------------------------------------------- RDF Schema (editors LC todo list) LC process summary: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0048.html Each comment raised against schema needs a response in the comments archive with either: - a reference to an issue recorded in this list - a withdrawl of the comment - an agreement to make an editorial change in response to the comment Comments archives: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/thread.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- simple TODOs done :) ---------------- complex (multi-issue etc or otherwise fiddly) TODOs Comment on RDF comment From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk) Date: Thu, Feb 20 2003 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0338.html [[[ I believe that the lack of "real" comments in RDF is a crucial omission that makes it unsuitable for use in realistic ontological engineering, or as as the basis for other languages (such as OWL) that will be so used. ]]] STATUS: * Issue created * URL for response? (or todo?) - point to ~1998 RDFS discussions (Guha gave ok on fwd'ing his msg from then) - opportunity for OWL to augment the basic RDFS commenting machinery? Issue opened: rdfs:comment semantics Web Ontology Working Group Consensus Review of RDF Core documents From: Jim Hendler (hendler@cs.umd.edu) Date: Thu, Feb 20 2003 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0335.html [[ 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). 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 evident. 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. ]] * DRAFT RESPONSE - should we create a 'rename RDFS entirely to RDVDL' issue? - issue re rdfs:comment? - is this subsumed by social meaning discussions? - ...NO under pfps-14/Social Meaning we have: TODO: - confirm that (ii) is dealt with by rdfs:comment semantics draft reply: [[ - note Social meaning issue - note other issues? rename schema ]] Subject: RDFS comments From: Bijan Parsia (bparsia@isr.umd.edu) Date: Fri, Feb 21 2003 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0365.html [[ Some common good ontology practices (such as favoring local property restritictions over global ones) are impossible in RDFS due to the lack of requisite constructs (someValuesFrom, etc.) In general, fixing RDFS before OWL is done, particularly the semantically significant parts strikes me as unwise. ]] TODO: open issue(s) - point to ~1998 era RDFS discussion and proposal for contextualised constraints. This was why WebOnt WG was chartered - ... --------- being handled elsewhere? (ask Brian...) From: "Karsten Tolle" To: Cc: "Vassilis Chistophides" Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:12:30 +0100 Subject: Clarifications needed for the Collection construct http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html ...which spec takes this one? Concepts?? *** per 2003-02-28 Brian has action to figure out which spec deal with this. action: Brian to help respond to Karsten(sp?) question wrt collections http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0328.html TODO: talk to brian STATUS: ?? -------------------------------- dropped? Guus Schreiber comments on rdfs: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0110.html Brian asked for clarification No response. [TODO: -ask for withdrawal?] -------------------------------- non-LC An rdfs:Schema Class From: Daniel \ (eikeon@eikeon.com) Date: Mon, Feb 24 2003 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0384.html Request for rdfs:Schema, along lines of owl:Ontology. TODO: open issue *** response needed (though after LC deadline) - how would this differ from owl:Ontology? (maybe this would help use pose that question compellingly...) -------------------------------- danbri done Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 21:50:37 -0800 To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org From: Susan Lesch Subject: Comments for WD-rdf-schema-20030123 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0373.html Caught some typos, and some editorial suggestions that need evaluating RESPONSE: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0548.html - asked for clarifications - requested an Issue from Brian PFPS: what is RDF Schema? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0149.html TODO: open issue STATUS: - replied, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0550.html - issue requested Qu Yuzhong on appendix A of schema/vocab: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0219.html STATUS: -reply,http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0551.html -requested issue FORTH COMMENTS ON RDF Schema: Last Call From: Vassilis Christophides (christop@ics.forth.gr) Date: Mon, Feb 17 2003 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0282.html [[ I am sending you this mail to record FORTH comments w.r.t the RDF/S specs. Our objections concerns the following aspects: (a) RDF/S Metaclasses & Abstraction Layers (b) RDF/S Properties Instantiation (c) RDF/S Properties Domain/Range (d) RDF/S Datatyping (e) RDF/S Class Cycles In the sequel you can find a section from our last journal publication summarizing our critic w.r.t. the current RDF/S specs. ]] Pat replied usefully. Followup question from Karsten Tolle, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0344.html on class cycles. TODO: is this a separate LC comment? STATUS: clarification req from danbri, http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0555.html Further response from Pat (which I'd endorse re RDFS spec) at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0347.html "Since this was a deliberate decision taken, after extended discussion, at the request of another working group, we are unlikely to change it now unless some very pressing new observations emerge." (note that per rdfcore 2003-02-28. jjc/gk will handle datatypes response) basically, PatH has sought clarification (with rebuttals) on everything on that comment they've not come back to him about it how do we catalogue such dangling things? same w/ guus' fairly informal comment you drop a line asking if Pat has satisfied their questions or if they have further clarification. and if don't reply? we wait; it'll close eventually. STATUS: -reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0553.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0561.html -- discussing whether to open issues From: "Erick Calder" Subject: language correction http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0243.html [[ reading: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-schema-20021112/ I find: "The example also shows that all documents are considered to be works, and that all people are agents." given that in both cases the arrow points upwards, it seems to me the correct description should be: "all agents are people". ]] TODO: DRAFT RESPONSE: [[ i) the diagram is correct, eg:Person --rdfs:subClassOf-->eg:Agent ie. says that anything that is a Person is an agent. ii) the diagram is no longer in the RDFS specification (but thanks anyway). http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/ -> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-schema-20030123/ ]] STATUS: answered, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0563.html PFPS: divergences between rdf semantics and rdf schema http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0124.html STATUS: -replied,http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0565.html requesting issue -------------------------------- other done Other RDFS-relates issues that are in LC process already PSPF RDFS closure rules: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0090.html Pat responds RDFS closure rules [OK] About rdfs:member and rdf:_nnn From: Qu Yuzhong (yzqu@seu.edu.cn) Date: Sun, Feb 16 2003 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0269.html [[ Consider adding an axiomatic triple as follows: rdfs:member rdfs:domain rdfs:Container Consider adding an axiomatic triple as follows: rdfs:member rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty ]] Recorded http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0326.html as http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-02 'rdfs:member functional?' againt Semantics doc. and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0301.html -> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-01 'Domain of rdfs:member' (Semantics too) [OK] PFPS on informal meaning in RDFS vocabulary: Brian summarises and records as pfps-11 Social Meaning [OK - social meaning in hand]