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

Re: ACTION 20030425#4 [was Re: timbl-03]

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 19:45:04 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030430194233.032057a8@127.0.0.1>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

At 09:20 30/04/2003 -0400, Frank Manola wrote:
>Or rather, whether this is true *in RDF* (as opposed to in OWL).  The 
>point is that, as I read the Semantics document, the only semantic 
>condition imposed on the collection vocabulary is that the type of rdf:nil 
>must be rdf:List.  This, of course, doesn't apply to the subject of an 
>rdf:first, so the inference Tim wants drawn would seem to be a semantic 
>extension which might be true for OWL, but not necessarily for RDF per 
>se.  It seems to me the explanation would have to cover this point in some way.

In the semantics doc, there's also:

[[
rdf:first rdfs:domain rdf:List .
rdf:rest rdfs:domain rdf:List .
]]
-- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#rdfs_interp

from which the rest flows through RDFS entailments.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 15:53:03 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:03 EDT