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

Re: Properties no longer required to be resources?

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 13:27:47 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030731132313.0248e628@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 12:09 31/07/03 +0100, Brian McBride wrote:
>On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 11:49, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> > [Checks original question...]
> >
> > [[
> >    sss ppp ooo .
> >
> > rdf entail
> >
> >    ppp rdf:type rdf:Resource .
> > ]]
> >
> > Er, I missed this before, but what's rdf:Resource?
>
>My mistake - should be rdfs:Resource, and I take your point.
>
>I think this leads me to the conclusion that I'd have preferred
>rdfs:Resource to be part of the RDF vocabulary and the above entailment
>to hold in RDF.

Well, that's been something I've wondered about myself, but it be a change 
from the original spec without any compelling justification that I could see.

>But it may well be too late to make that change.

I think so, since the proof I offered used other aspects of RDFS entailment 
(axiomatic triple, rdfs:domain and ICEXT conditions).  If the entailment 
were true in RDF without the other RDFS semantic constraints, I would fear 
a new possibility of corner-case contradictions.

#g


---------------------------------
Graham Klyne  <GK@NineByNine.net>
Nine by Nine
http://www.ninebynine.net/
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 09:58:04 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:53 EDT