Re: (tentative) container model proposal

Actually, no. I do mean it. It should all *completely* go away.guha

Dan Brickley wrote:

> > > 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