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

Re: heads-up on planned changes in MT

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 01:32:46 +0100
To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF73326ABF.BE4C6E30-ON41256AD7.0002B504@bayer-ag.com>

Pat,

[...]
> This would mean that rdf-entailment (as it will be called, ie
> entailment with respect to the rdf: namespace) will become a bit more
> like rdfs entailment is now; but only a bit like it. (Jos, sorry to
> make your life more complicated, but I think it will actually work
> out better for the entailment examples, in the end. )

I try to follow that ``PatH''...

> The following are true in any rdf interpretation of the rdf
> vocabulary (three typings and two domainings:)
>
> rdf:domain rdf:type rdf:Property .
>
> rdf:range rdf:type rdf:Property .
>
> rdf:type rdf:type rdf:Property .
>
> rdf:domain rdf:domain rdf:Property .
>
> rdf:range: rdf:domain rdf:Property .

yes, although
  rdfs:domain rdf:type rdf:Property .
  rdf:type rdf:type rdf:Property .
can be entailed from rule 1b
the others are indeed basic.
(I also assume that domain and range
still live in the rdfs namespace)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 29 September 2001 19:33:00 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:51 EDT