- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:21:59 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
I've added this as an issue to our issues list: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-duplicate-member-props and will schedule its consiseration by the RDFCore WG as soon as possible. [...] > > Of course, this paragraph goes against some later decisions, as it > > explicitly forbids holes in collections, which are now explicitly allowed. > >Right; it seems to me that we've decided to allow this. >But perhaps unconsciously. As I recall this was a deliberate decision. It was based on a view that the formal model in M&S was describing a given container has an abstract existence - the platonic container if you like, and that it was quite permissable for RDF graphs to represent partial knowledge of such a container, i.e. that containers are specifically not syntactic constructs. The inclusion of this statement in the formal model section makes more sense when viewed in that light. Brian
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 15:45:23 UTC