Re: Re 2: [TF-ENT] RDFS entailment regime proposal

Birte Glimm wrote:
[snip]

>> Something like that. This is only an informative comment, so we can
>> wordsmith later (the text you have may be a little bit too theoretical
>> for a lambda reader, but tastes differ...)
> 
> I'll add some (hopefully) more accessible text to the document.
>

Thanks

> [snip]
> 
[snip]

>> O.k., that can also work. It means yet another category, distinct from
>> RDFS, OWL, etc. I do not really have strong feelings about that.
> 
> Maybe I was too quick. I would like to agree on RDFS first. We can
> then see what else we need for D-entailment (if anything) and if it
> turns out to be easy, we can cover everything under D-entailment and
> just state what is different for RDF(S). My main arguement here is,
> let's get RDFS right first and agree on that.
>

Sounds like a plan:-)

[snip]

>> So this falls under the question whether we try to be future proof with
>> regard to the literal-in-subject restriction... Well, I am not dead
>> against this, but this should be made very clear that this is a choice
>> we make. If we decide to keep to today's RDF, then rdf:_xxx is simpler
>> for the lambda user to understand...
> 
> Yes. the more general condition is more future proof and does no harm
> other than that it is slightly less straight forward to understand for
> users. I'll add a comment to explain the choice and we can keep this
> as something that we might want to change (to rdf:_1, ... only).
>

Ok.

> 
> I would also prefer not to go there. Then I would prefer the
> restriction that you have to give limits for queries that match the
> axiomatic triples, but my favourite solution is what we have now.
>

O.k. Agreed.

Cheers

Ivan

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf