- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 15:22:34 -0500
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>I had an action
>
> ACTION 20030425#4 frank figure out the cost to PRIMER of accepting timbl-03
>
>
>The way the Primer is currently written, readers would probably
>conclude that the graph generated from a parseType Collection would
>necessarily include the "redundant" rdf:type triples Tim objects to,
>and it wouldn't be clear that they could be omitted (e.g., if
>someone were to write RDF/XML to describe the triples directly,
>rather than using parseType Collection. So some additional
>explanation would be required, but I don't think it would be
>extensive or complicated.
>
>However, one thing I'd need some clarification on (in writing that
>explanation) is whether it is true, as Tim suggested in his original
>comment, that
>
>"It is trivial to restore the triples for anyone who wants them fro a
>graph without them, using
>{ ?x rdf:first ?y } => { ?x a rdf:List }."
>
>Or rather, whether this is true *in RDF* (as opposed to in OWL).
Actually it is true in RDFS, since it follows (in RDFS) from
rdf:first rdfs:domain rdf:List .
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 16:22:48 UTC