- From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:21:59 -0400
- To: <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, <sandro@w3.org>, <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> Subject: Re: simple fix Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:07:13 -0500 >>> From: public-rdf-text-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-text-request@w3.org >>> ] >>> On Behalf Of Sandro Hawke >>> Sent: 21 May 2009 21:01 >>> To: public-rdf-text@w3.org >>> Subject: simple fix >>> >>> >>> Can't we just say, as strongly as we need to, that rdf:text is NOT >>> for >>> use in RDF? > > Too strong. All we need is that its not for use as the datatype URI in > an RDF typed literal. It would be fine to allow RDFS to reason about > the class, for example. Yes, that is pretty much what my earlier > suggestion amounts to, in practice. [...] Umm, doesn't a prohibition against this effectively run counter to the oft-stated goal that "RDF is supposed to be able to say anything about anything"? > Pat peter
Received on Thursday, 21 May 2009 20:22:29 UTC