W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: domains of container membership properties

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 19:34:55 -0400
To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030426233455.GA31109@tux.w3.org>

* Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com> [2003-04-27 01:22+0200]
> 
> >> Can anyone tell me if we have decided this?
> >>
> >> Should the domains of  rdf:_1, rdf:_2, etc., be rdfs:Container or
> >> rdfs:Resource? Peter tells me that email discussions about rdf:li
> >> say they should be the latter, ie. it is OK to apply these properties
> >> to non-containers. Is that right?
> >>
> >> Reply only if you actually know ;-)
> >
> >To the best of my knowledge, we didn't set a domain of rdfs:Container
> >for these properties. They're applicable to everything.
> 
> I don't understand that;
> applying it to :aaa e.g.
> 
> :aaa rdf:_987 :bbb.
> 
> means that
> 
> :aaa rdf:type rdfs:Container.

no it doesn't, since we don't have 

 rdf:_987 rdfs:domain rdfs:Container .


While we're liberal in allowing these properties to 
be applied to non-Containers, that doesn't guarantee that
all such applications will be sensible. Your eg of rdf:nil
is probably a good example of that.

Dan
 

> If we say that it can be applied to
> everything, then we can apply it to
> rdf:nil, but what is the meaning of
> rdf:nil rdf:type rdfs:Container. ??
> 
> 
> >This strikes me as useful: such an ugly set of properties shouldn't
> >be duplicated for other uses ;)
> 
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2003 19:34:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:02 EDT