- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:47:11 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> Aha! Here is my point of divergence. Where does the RDF spec > prohibit such > conditions in the OWL model theory? The OWL model theory imposes extra > meaning on lots of the RDF namespace, including rdf:type, rdfs:Class, and > rdf:Property. Is this illegal? If so, there is no way to provide an > RDFS-compatible meaning for OWL. > I support Peter on this point; I believe DanC diverges and would prefer owl:List. I believe owl:List could also be made to work. If we do decide to go this way it certainly should be communicated to RDF Core as a consequence of their refusal to do list semantics Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:47:16 UTC