Re: pressing question about containermembershipproperty syntax

I agree.

#g
--

At 11:18 AM 12/21/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:

>My take on this:
>
>The namespace
>
>   http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
>
>is controlled by W3C.  We can say that it does contain the name _:1 and it 
>does not contain the name _:01.  I have never seen it suggested before 
>that _:01 was legal.  I suggest that we make it clear in the vocabulary 
>document that it is not.
>
>Brian
>
>At 12:45 20/12/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>
>>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
>
>-------------------
>Graham Klyne
><GK@NineByNine.org>

Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 11:43:31 UTC