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

Re: draft question: option C

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 20:16:04 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021016183033.023edb90@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 10:25 15/10/2002 -0500, pat hayes wrote:

[...]

>>I want to be sure that whatever spec we come up with,
>>I can continue to use the datatype property idiom...
>>     <k:Thursday r:about="#_thu10">
>>         <dt:date>2002-10-10</dt:date>
>>     </k:Thursday>
>>         -- http://www.w3.org/2002/10dc-uk/itin3.rdf
>>
>>So far, our (published WD) specs have been consistent
>>with a view that classes and properties are disjoint. (In
>>SWAD, we use that assumption for lint-style checking.)
>>The 6Sep decision seems to conflict with the
>>use of the datatype property idioim under
>>the disjointness-of-properties-and-classes
>>assumption.
>
>I was not aware that there was any such assumption. On the contrary, in 
>fact: the MT has been designed to allow the possibility of a class and a 
>property being the same. If this is an assumption, maybe we should reflect 
>it formally in the language. Certainly that would make the Webont work a 
>little simpler.

We discussed this.  It was felt that asking users to distinguish between 
two uri's for a datatype, one for the class and one for the property would 
be unnecessarily confusing.

The notion that classes and properties were not disjoint has been around 
for many months and has found general acceptance.  I'm not convinced that 
SWAD's lint application is sufficiently strong justification to reopen this.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 15:13:39 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:26 EDT