W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > March 2002

Re: rdfs:Class vs. daml:Class ?

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:04:29 +0000
Message-ID: <15512.35037.2798.334661@galahad.cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
On March 20, Brian McBride writes:
> At 13:41 19/03/2002 +0000, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> [...]
> > >
> > > About your paper: has there been any official response to the idea of 
> > using rdfs(fa) to
> > > redefine the model for rdf and rdfs?
> >
> >Not much. There is a proposal to indicate some triples as being
> >"non-asserted", which I believe can be seen as a very weak form of
> >layered architecture (but when I suggested this to Pat he was rather
> >dismissive).
> 
> I'd hate for folks to get the idea that RDFCore are being unresponsive to a 
> problem.

Sorry - didn't mean to imply that.

> This is the first I have heard of this proposal to redefine the model for 
> RDF and RDFS, so its not surprising there has been no 'official response', 
> at least from RDFCore.

Fair enough - it was never really a proposal, just a paper published as SWWS.

Ian


> 
> Brian
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 08:04:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:42 GMT