- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:11:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: <guha@alpiri.com>
- cc: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@baltimore.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > My claim was pretty modest: just that both rdf:type and rdf:_n constructs > > are similarly privileged in RDF's XML syntax, but that neither deserve > > any special architectural privilege w.r.t. the basic formalities of the > > triples model. Whether we feel the one is more/less useful, intuitive etc > > is a separate issue, and one that you're right to postone to future work > > on syntax beautification. > > > > Dan > Amen. Stated differently, everything not in the first box > in section 5 of the M&S spec should go away from the spec > > guha (that's a little stronger, but i think we basically agree...) We don't want it all to go away, just to "go away" from that (central, foundational) section of the spec. As DanC noted last week, there are some constraints, such as that being the n-th member of a container is a uniquely identifying property (ie. that each rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty is a daml:FunctionalProperty ((?)), which will need to be written down somewhere in one of the WG's specs... danbri
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 16:11:57 UTC