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

RE: The Peter paradox isn't.

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:09:26 -0000
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDEEBFCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> > 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.
> 

The change I was imagining is that:
- typed node production continues unchanged,
- triples involving rdf:type continue unchanged
But

rdf:type rdf:type rdfs:Property .

is false.

So that the rdf document (namespace liberties)

<rdf:RDF>
  <rdfs:Property rdf:about="rdf:type" />
</rdf:RDF>

is a contradicition.

And any use of rdf:type with rdfs:subPropertyOf is also a contradiction.

i.e. a change to RDF Schema not to RDF M&S.

Certainly if these changes impact deployed code then they are not minor.

Jeremy

 
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 08:09:55 GMT

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