- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:46:55 +0200
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
----- Original Message -----
From: "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org>
Sent: 04 November, 2002 02:16
Subject: Re: rdfs:Datatype question
>
>
> [...]
>
> > Unless Im missing something, therefore, I propose that we drop
> rdfs:Datatype.
> >
> > PROPOSE: do not introduce rdfs:Datatype into the rdfs namespace.
>
> it is critical in the following entailment rules
>
> { :rule10a . ?d a rdfs:Datatype } log:implies { ?d rdfs:domain ?d } .
> { :rule10b . ?d a rdfs:Datatype } log:implies { ?x^^?d ?d ?x } .
Well, fair enough, although the above are not *RDF* entailment rules ;-)
But it does clearly show the utility of being able to explicitly
and consistently talk about RDF datatype classes.
Patrick
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 02:47:19 UTC