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 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:00 EDT