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

pressing question about containermembershipproperty syntax

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:45:25 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b01ba2914bc335a@[10.0.100.86]>
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 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:57 EDT