Re: proposals for Lists and Seq (ISSUE-77)

Probably. The infinite entailments thing is very crazy, but the rdfs:member property is reasonably useful.

I would be more in favour of making it less crazy e.g. limiting the instances of rdfs:member to rdfs:_N properties that actually exist in the graph.

- Steve

On 2011-10-20, at 13:28, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Steve, Dan
> 
> Would you be ready to at least remove them from the core RDFS semanitcs, ie, the entailments?
> 
> Ivan
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman
> web: http://www.ivan-herman.net
> mobile: +31 64 1044 153
> 
> On 20 Oct 2011, at 13:21, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 20 October 2011 13:13, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't be comfortable with marking Seq as "archaic" or similar unless there's a viable alternative, and I don't think List counts.
>> 
>> Me neither.  Nor "quaint", "twee", "retro" or "regrettable". It's just
>> what it is, with no great mystery or confusion.
>> 
>> Dan
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD