- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 20 Feb 2002 08:44:04 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 08:31, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > YAWN, hire a Prolog programmar. > > > > I raised this issue, and I didn't say anything about prolog when > > I raised it. I can't read prolog well enough to tell if > > the code below works; if it works, it relies > > on prolog's closed-world reasoning, which I find > > unacceptable. > > > Sorry then. (& despite my bravado I wouldn't be surprised if my Prolog was > buggy - it'll be close enough though). > > I was probably a bit offensive. No problem; it made the issue pretty clear, I think. > No. You are quite right there is an open world/closed world issue here that > is non-trivial and is part of RDF containers being defective. Agreed. > Personally I think the fixes to make RDF containers OK are decidedly > non-trivial, and I would guess out-of-charter. I can live with that; as I said, I'm using a first/rest vocabulary from another vocabulary, after all. Oh... I can live with this as long as the "postponed for the RDF vNext design party" list includes this issue. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 09:44:30 UTC