From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 03/22/01
From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: Re: new walkthrough Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 14:12:07 -0600 > I have some questions about the walk-through (Im drafting a number of > changes to the English, but I noticed this on the way:) > > 1. The document says > > Note that this (imports) tag is an empty element; the same tag starts > and ends the element, denoted by the trailing "/" just before the > closing ">". > > but in fact there is no / just before the closing > in that tag. Bug. Change it. (Note: The actual .daml file is OK.) > 3. The document says: > -------------------------------------- > <daml:Class rdf:ID="Animal"> > > This asserts that there is an abstract class known as Animal. It > doesn't say anything else about animal other than specifying an > identifier. It is also not > (necessarily) the sole source of information about Animals; we will > see below how we can add to a definition made elsewhere. > > However, by saying that its ID is Animal, we make it possible for > others to refer to the definition of Animal we're giving here. (This > is done using the uri of > the containing page followed by #Animal.) > > <rdfs:label>Animal</rdfs:label> > <rdfs:comment> > This class of animals is illustrative of a number of ontological idioms. > </rdfs:comment> > > These two lines introduce a label -- a brief identifier of the > enclosing element, suitable for graphical representations of RDF, > etc. -- and a comment -- a natural > language (English, in this case) description of the element within > which it is included. Neither a label nor a comment contributes to > the logical interpretation of > the language. > -------------------------------------- > Question: since we have rdf:ID="Animal" in the opening tag, why do we > need to say that the rdfs:label is also "Animal" ? This seems > redundant. Which of these two is the one that actually attaches the > name 'Animal' to the class for purposes of #-subscripting? Or must > one write both? (If so that is DUMB.) If it is not redundant (for > some reason connected with the rdf/rdfs distinction which is opaque > to me) could the rdf:ID and the rdfs:label be different? If so, we > should actually have them as being different in the example, to make > the point. If not, we should say something about whatever the > brain-damaged reason is for having to say the same thing twice. > Either way it isn't good enough to just say that the label 'makes it > possible for others to refer', since the rdf:ID does that already. > > More later. I'm not sure what rdfs:label is supposed to be used for. Sure it is in the rdfs rec, and is supposed to be a ``human readable'' version of a resource name, but what is that supposed to be? I suggest that we remove rdfs:label from our examples. peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST