- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 24 Apr 2003 08:28:33 -0500
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-04-24 at 05:22, Dave Beckett wrote: > >>>Dan Brickley said: > > I thought TimBL's point was that the 'this is a List' statements could > > be inferred through knowledge of the rdfs:domain of rdf:first and > > rdf:rest. Anything familiar with the meaning of these rdf properties > > will know that they can be truly applied only to lists. In that light, > > forcing parsers to emit this data explicitly is indeed rather redundant. > > That was just one of the points, the owl semantics / lemmas / proofs > use rdf:List. I can't say throw it out since I don't understand if > they are required. My argument stands until somebody who does tells > me that they are required/not required for these purposes too. No, "I don't know if they are requirement" is not a rational argument to support "they cannot be added at a higher level". Your argument does not stand. > Dave -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 09:28:29 UTC