W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Issue #qu-01 Domain of rdfs:member

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:56:00 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030218175420.073fdc20@localhost>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "Qu Yuzhong" <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

At 11:25 18/02/2003 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>>Comments on rdfs:member and rdf:_nnn.
>>
>>1. About rdfs:member
>>
>>Why not constraint the rdfs:domain of rdfs:member to be rdfs:Container?
>>    (3.3 RDFS interpretations of the RDF Semantics spec)
>
>We could, indeed. This would constrain any other uses of rdfs:member on 
>user-defined container types, however, and it does not seem that it would 
>provide very much useful functionality. I will however raise this matter 
>with the WG.
>
>>     Consider adding an axiomatic triple as follows:
>>     rdfs:member rdfs:domain rdfs:Container
>>
>>Why not specify rdfs:member to be an instance of 
>>rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty?
>>    (3.3 RDFS interpretations of the RDF Semantics spec)
>>
>>     Consider adding an axiomatic triple as follows:
>>     rdfs:member rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty
>>
>>By so doing, we have:
>>* rdfs:member is an instance of rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty (not 
>>just rdf:Property) that is a super-property of all the container 
>>membership properties.
>
>Right, that is an option. However there is also the intuition that the 
>ContainerMembershipProperties are totally ordered, and rdfs:member is 
>nowhere in that ordering. Again I think this is best discussed by the WG.
>
>Brian, an issue number for this??

This has been recorded as a last call comment

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#qu-01

The WG will consider this comment and get back to you.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 12:57:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT