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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 October 2009 14:42:15 GMT