- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 01:33:27 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: "patrick.stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> >Pat, > > > >we have tried to summarize that > >at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfd-theory.n3 > >is that making sense ??? > > Is that 'a' in the first triple in the antecedent shorthand for > rdf:type?? If so that seems to all make sense, except the first > triple in the antecedents ought to be yes, ``a'' is shorthand for ``rdf:type'' > ?d a rdf:DataType . > > Ie d is in the class of datatypes. dType is the datatyping property. of course I've also added rdf:DataType a rdfs:Class . > Of course this doesn't actually state the literal-interpretation > rules, but I don't think you can say those in RDF. > > I'd prefer to state the second rule consequent as > > ?d rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:value . well, I must say that I don't yet see that yet but that's maybe because I better go and sleep now :-) > but I can see that would give you a much longer inference path. Your > version ought to work, though, in every case I can think of :-) I'm curious to experiment with that... > Pat > PS On a different topic, did Ora contact you about the closure rules? > He has some startling statistics on how redundant they are. we had a couple of messages indeed (but I now start to realize that point) -- Jos
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 19:34:06 UTC