W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Some controversial triples

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:07:16 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101010b7e37a1b57da@[205.160.76.189]>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
This is a request for guidance from the WG. There are some RDFS 
triples that some people think should be true in every rdfs 
interpretation, while other people have doubts. The MT itself can be 
phrased either way, so we human beings have to decide. They are all 
concerned with what might be called RDFS navel-gazing.

1  rdfs:ConstraintProperty rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property .

2. rdfs:comment rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .

3. rdfs:label rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .

Currently 1. is included in the rdfs closure, but the other two are 
not. However, Jos' engine and CWM do not generate 1..  Peter P-S 
thinks that the RDFS spec states 2 and 3; my own view right now is 
that that wording in the spec is better seen as a syntactic 
constraint, and shouldn't be stated as a range constraint. But I can 
be persuaded.

Bear in mind that including such triples in a closure can have 
knock-on effects on other triples that might be inferrable from these 
using other closure rules.

Anyone got any strong views on any of these one way or the other?

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:07:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:57 EDT