Re: rdf:first/rest/nil/List: syntax-only at the RDF level

[...]

> I actually said in the MT document that those rules weren't intended
> to define a process or to be directly implemented. I wish Id never
> mentioned closure rules: it was only intended to be a way of relating
> the semantics together.

right, I understand that, but still, inference rules can be inferenced
why then not use e.g. owl properties for some of the rdfs-rules
e.g.
rdf:first a owl:FunctionalProperty.          # and just have rdf:List
rdfs:subClassOf a owl:TransitiveProperty.    # instead of rule5
rdfs:subPropertyOf a owl:TransitiveProperty. # instead of rule3

I really can't see any problem with such an *implementation*
at least not as far as I did tests with that (for all our testcases)
(in a similar way, owl-rules could make use of e.g. math properties)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:36:28 UTC