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

Re: some errors in the MT

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:53:53 -0400 (EDT)
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0109261952340.3837-100000@tux.w3.org>


Well, I'm late with the RDFS tidyup draft for the WG, so as pennance I'll
try to do better to sync it with the MT doc, now that there is a MT W3C
Tech Report it can cite.

Nice work BTW, regardless of bugs.

Dan

On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Pat Hayes wrote:

> There are some serious bugs in the RDFS closure table in section 6 of
> the MT WP. See a recent message from Peter Patel-Schneider and my
> reply, on rdf-logic
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Sep/0033.html.
>   I will try to get the bugs out and produce a revision as soon as
> possible (couple of days). Along the way I will also fix all the
> little typos and add a wee bit of explanatory prose here and there to
> prevent the misinterpretations that seem to have been produced.
>
> One matter that I would like some feedback on is, what to do about
> rdf:type rdfs:Literal.  Since it is syntactically illegal in RDF to
> write
>
> xxx rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
>
> when xxx is a literal, and since this is false in RDFS if xxx does
> not denote a literal value, there would seem to be little utility in
> having rdfs:Literal in the language at all, since it is impossible to
> say anything true about it other than things like
>
> rdfs:Literal rdf:type rdfs:Class .
>
> which have it in subject position. So I decided to simply ignore it.
> However, I didn't actually say that it was being ignored, so Peter
> was right to slap my wrist about this.
>
> I am inclined to simply avoid this issue right now by explicitly
> stating in section 6 that the RDFS analysis simply excludes all
> mention of rdfs:Literal, with a brief explanation of why and
> suggestion that this will be revisited in future work. If nobody
> objects strongly to this way of getting out of this problem, I will
> circulate a draft wording soon.
>
> ....Sorry ....
>
> Pat
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 19:53:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:50 EDT