> qu-02 seems out of place to me since RDF does not have the notion of > functional relation. I have had some email correspondence with Qu > about this, and he wants it discussed. I would be unhappy if the RDF > semantics imposed semantic conditions which could not be reflected in > any RDF entailments, on general methodological grounds. Discussion? This can be reflected in an RDF non-entailment. qu http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0269.html _:xxx rdf:type rdf:Seq. _:xxx rdf:_2 <ex:a> . _:xxx rdf:_2 <ex:c> . <ex:a> <eg:foo> <eg:bar> . does not entail <ex:c> <eg:foo> <eg:bar> . I believe we can address qu-02 by adding this non-entailment to the test suite and not changing the semantics doc. (Unless we already have a similar test, in which case this is a no-op). JeremyReceived on Wednesday, 12 March 2003 03:37:18 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:13 EDT