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

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

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:14:27 -0400
Message-ID: <3EB02EA3.F2F9B103@mitre.org>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
CC: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>

Yes;  as noted in an earlier interaction with Brian, this also applies
to RDFS.  As I said, the Primer would have to cover this point in some
way (given that at the point where the Primer talks about Collections,
it hasn't gotten to Schema yet).

--Frank

Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2003 16:14:56 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:04 EDT