- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:45:25 -0600
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Guys, I have an urgent question. In a recent email, Peter P-S claimed
the following:
>It appears to me that there is such a distinction in RDF graphs, and,
>moreover, both
>
> { < "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1"
> "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type"
> "http://www.w3.org/2001/01/rdf-schema#ContainerMembershipProperty" > }
>
>and
>
> { < "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_01"
> "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type"
> "http://www.w3.org/2001/01/rdf-schema#ContainerMembershipProperty" > }
>
>are legal RDF graphs, only one of which is RDFS-entailed by the empty RDF
>graph.
If Peter is right then we need to fix something; that is, either
leading zeros in CMP names should be syntactically illegal, or else I
need to tweak the RDFS semantics to make those CMP syntactic forms
have their obvious meaning.
I don't know for sure, however, if they are syntactically legal or
not. Can anyone answer that question, please?
Thanks.
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Friday, 20 December 2002 13:45:31 UTC