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

Re: RDFS rule 0

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 14:30:54 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDMECPCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Jos & Pat appear to agree on:
>  -------------------------------------------------------
>| 0c | xxx aaa yyy.     | yyy rdf:type rdfs:Resource.   |
>  -------------------------------------------------------

I don't. :-(.

I had taken the position of the WG as being agnosticism as to whether
Literals is-a-subset-of Resources or not.

[Although looking back at a heated debate which I was not part of - it is
unclear to me what the resolution was - no no no - don't restart that one].

This change appears to me to be unnecessary, particularly at this stage.

The agreement of the teleconference was to publish the draft with minor
editorial changes. I do not perceive this change as minor since it steps on
a landmine.

Hence I *OBJECT* to publication of a working draft including rule 1C from

http://cvs.ilrt.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/redland/rdfcore/mt/RDFMT-currentdraft.
html?rev=1.4&content-type=text/html#rdfsentail

Sorry, & I really want publication to go ahead, but without 0c/1C.


[I am also aware that there are complications in these area even without
rule 0c. I was waiting until after publication to start discussing those
complications, since in  my opinion, what we agree on is very worthy of
publication, and raising hornet's nest will be more productive once we have
the model theory out of the door.]


Jeremy
Received on Monday, 24 September 2001 09:31:07 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:49 EDT