Re: New draft of section 5.5

Jonathan Rees wrote:
> Can you check what I wrote at /latest/ to see if it matches what Ed is
> saying? I think it does.

Almost, you've just split in to alice and bob, instead of alice 
asserting all the properties, (and bob trying to make sense of it, 
possibly).

> The answer doesn't have to be a partition of the statements, although
> that would be one way to do it. My approach is closer to Ed's I think
> - it's a classification of subject and object positions of properties,
> i.e. a partition of properties into four categories. It doesn't even
> strictly require an IR/NIR type distinction. The domain analysis and
> model theory is a detail, and an important one if the idea is to be
> pursued (e.g. I would think you'd want to prove it sound with respect
> to RDFS). But the idea can (and should) be presented without it, just
> by reference to requirements, which is what I think I've done.

Fully agree, I /quite/ like the classification by domain and range of 
properties myself tbh.

Best,

Nathan

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 18:16:41 UTC