Re: new walkthrough

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 03/22/01

From: pat hayes <>
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.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST