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

RE: Unasserted triples, Contexts and things that go bump in the night.

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:25:51 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 13:54 21/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> > At 22:28 20/03/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > [...]
> > >Oh... but more substantively:
> > >the hassle of dealing with an infinite number
> > >of rdf:_1 rdf:_2 things.
> > Hmmm.  Its been proposed we make all those subproperties of some common
> > super property, e.g. rdf:member.  Is there anything we are likely
> >  to want
> > to say about any rdf:_nnn that is not true of rdfs:member.  Would
> > that deal
> > with this, or am I missing the point?
>The latter :( ...
>The problem is that the daml:list construction with an explicit end is
>viewed as safer vis-a-vis a closed world assumption that is being made.

I'm aware of the point about closure.  I thinks there are ways to deal with 
that. DanC brought up another point about handling the infinity of rdf:_nnn 
properties.  I took that to mean that there are problems e.g. stating that 
they are all of type rdfs:Property.

I now realise that it would be somewhat tedious to define an infinite set 
of subproperties, e.g. foo:_1 a subproperty of rdf:_1, foo:_2 etc.

Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 09:27:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC