- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:06:54 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
"Jeremy Carroll" wrote: > > Pat: > > > >The summary of all this is that if you want to be a > > same-syntax extension > > > >of the RDF model theory and you have > > > >a) rdf:type as a property; > > > >b) defined classes, like DAML+OIL restrictions; > > > >c) some sort of complement or negation; and > > > >d) self reference > > > > I had wondered whether changing (a) and not having rdf:type as a property > would be the simplest fix. I am not sure what the implications of "changing (a)" are, but rdf:type has a central role in RDF 1, specifically for the typedNode production. There is much software which depends on this, including software that traverses rdf:type arcs as part of the inferencing process. The current RDF work is not intended to 'break' current software. > > It seems like a very minor change to RDF and one that I reckon those of us > in both groups would be able to get passed the rest of RDF Core without too > much difficulty. > I am already concerned that RDF datatyping is moving away from rdf:type. If we are writing a new language, perhaps RDF 2, and it fixes problems in RDF 1, that would be great. Let's call it that. Put the new language in a new namespace (RDF2) so that current software won't be confused. That is what namespaces are for. Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 07:41:59 UTC