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

RE: Outstanding Issues - rdfms-seq-representation

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>
Message-Id: <1014216245.19337.136.camel@dirk>
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 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:17 EDT