- From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 00:26:56 +0200
- To: <MDaconta@aol.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
>I don't think it is naive at all. That's a relief ;-) In fact, your suggestion is similar to >decoy's for layering the feature on top of the existing specs. This is >what I will do in the near term; however, the real issue is not >"can this be layered on top" but "is it so fundamental, it should be >part of the base." Hmm - speaking as one who has had several good ideas on what is "...so fundamental...", only to have it shown by the good fellow of this list that they belong better in layers on top, I would definitely recommend a good pause for deliberation... (but it might well be something for the base!) Also, if the knowledge representation is incorrect >without it (due to what I call "implied subordination") then to be correct >it should be part of rdfs. Hmm again - I'm going to have to reread the (other) thread, I don't think I've really grasped where the implied subordination applies (apart from the choice of word 'property'). I can see the triple as having order and/or the 3 slots having constraints, but I can't really see how this amounts to subordination. Cheers, Danny.
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 18:35:21 UTC