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

Re: regrets this friday 1st August

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:11:36 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCB42A6FC.B585E887-ONC1256D71.0045B778-C1256D71.00487A89@agfa.be>


Jeremy wrote:
> Also I give the HP proxy to Brian just in case there is a CR/PR vote.
>
> My current preference is PR, but I am clearly not sufficiently in touch
with
> an "HP" position, given Dave Reynolds implementation report which seemed
to
> me at least to be more negative,
>
> i.e. so far
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0076
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0278
>
> we have no complete RDFS implementation (in terms of inference)
>
> This may be reason to go for a CR, possibly labelling those bits that are
not
> yet implemented as at risk.
>
> e.g. two of our RDFS implementors do not appear to buy into an infinity
of
> axiomatic triples ...

Well (I do), I have some (additional builtin) code like

  if (goal.verb == RDFtype &&
      goal.obj.deref().verb == RDFSContainerMembershipProperty &&
      goal.subj.deref().verb.startsWith(RDF + "#_")
  // that goal succeeds

to overcome issues with infinity
(math: properties are similar for instance).


> e.g. maybe we made the wrong call on the xmlsch-02 ...

Maybe yes; I see that .NET platforms (MS, Mono, ...)
have similar behaviour as xerces (which we also use)
so maybe we should make all 4 of them positive, hm..


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 09:11:47 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:50 EDT