W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: rdfD1 rule and xsd-rules

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 09:50:58 +0200
Message-ID: <007501c299d7$8d4e9130$a09216ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 01 December, 2002 05:57
Subject: Re: rdfD1 rule and xsd-rules


> 
> >Hi Pat,
> >
> >in http://users.skynet.be/jdroo/euler/rdfs-rules
> >we simplified rdfD1 as follows
> >
> >   { ?d a rdfs:Datatype } log:implies { ?x^^?d a ?d } .
> 
> But that has a literal subject, which is forbidden. I agree that if 
> we could have literal subjects, this would be an obviously valid rule 
> (better, it IS valid, but its syntactically illegal.)

I think it is very useful to be able to have entailments such as the
above, even if syntactically illegal -- simply being clear that the
the semantics is fully valid and therefore applications are free to
presume that meaning, even if it cannot be legally captured in RDF/XML.

Patrick
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 02:51:01 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:47 EDT