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

Re: the idea of a 'reserved' vocabulary

From: patrick hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:06:06 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111a1db9305ed70c50@[65.217.30.123]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>At 08:15 AM 6/14/02 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
>>Second, would somebody please show how this helps with layering?
>>
>>i.e. show how it relates to the example in...
>>
>># Layering OWL on RDF: the case for unasserted triples
>>Jonathan Borden (Thu, May 30 2002)
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0145.html
>
>The example in the referenced document uses additional statements:
>
>   owl:List rdf:type rdf:Unasserted .
>   owl:first rdf:type rdf:Unasserted .
>   owl:rest rdf:type rdf:Unasserted .
>   owl:nil rdf:type rdf:Unasserted .
>
>but Guha has explained that that approach is non-monotonic.
>
>The revised proposal simply defines triples using certain URIs to be 
>unasserted, regardless of any other triples that may appear in the 
>graph, so there's no question that adding a new triple makes a truth 
>out of a falsehood.
>
>Referring to my suggestion, the properties used above as owl:List, 
>owl:first, owl:rest, owl:nil would be given URIs of the form:
>
>   http://www.w3.org/2002/06-rdf-unasserted#List
>   http://www.w3.org/2002/06-rdf-unasserted#first
>   http://www.w3.org/2002/06-rdf-unasserted#rest
>   http://www.w3.org/2002/06-rdf-unasserted#nil
>
>Actually, I don't think List and nil need to be given this 
>unasserted treatment.

I  now agree. I think we should only require that *properties* are 
unasserted. This has a beneficial side-effect in any case regarding 
back-compatibility, since then it anything rdf-entailed by an 
unasserted triple is also unasserted; so that an RDF engine that 
ignores unassertion won't cause any 'harm' to one that pays attention 
to it.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)322 0319   cell
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 14 June 2002 23:06:05 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:18 EDT