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

Re: pressing question about containermembershipproperty syntax

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 20:58:10 +0100
To: "Graham Klyne <GK" <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBD06E778.FB3DCF14-ONC1256C96.006DA7E9-C1256C96.006DB2E9@agfa.be>


I agree too

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                        
                    Graham Klyne                                                                                        
                    <GK@NineByNine.org>       To:     Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>                               
                    Sent by:                  cc:     pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org              
                    w3c-rdfcore-wg-requ       Subject:     Re: pressing question about containermembershipproperty      
                    est@w3.org                 syntax                                                                   
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        
                    2002-12-21 05:48 PM                                                                                 
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        





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 15:00:29 EST

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