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

RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-05-11

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:27:11 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90DB3@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <danbri@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 09 May, 2003 15:19
> To: Dan Brickley; Brian McBride
> Cc: Jeremy Carroll; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-05-11
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > If they were just constraining the current RDF/XML syntax, it'd
> > be bearable. But
> > for this to be their legacy for all future syntaxes seems pretty
> > heavy, given
> > that the triples are implied.
> >
> 
> No - strong disagreement.
> 
> In OWL there are many triples which are redundant because 
> they are implied.
> However, it is hard to tell which triples are redundant and 
> which are not.
> End users need clear and simply guide lines. One such guideline is
> "everything must have a type".

Do you mean by that that "everything must have at least one explicitly
asserted type"?

If everything has at least one inferrable type, is that not enough?

Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 08:40:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:29 EDT