W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: The Peter paradox isn't.

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 08:06:54 -0500
Message-ID: <028601c1bad8$a54be000$0301a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:47 GMT