- 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>
> > 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 UTC