- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 15:13:44 -0800
- To: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/12/2014 02:31 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote: > > On 11/13/14, 8:24 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> RDFS is part of the RDF spec, so we do not have to go beyond the RDF spec to >> get the benefits of RDFS. > > Which benefits do you mean? Inferencing? > > (In general I admit I often find your statements enigmatic. It's often unclear > to me what solution you are proposing). Well, then I'm having the effect I want. At this point I'm not advocating or even proposing a solution. I am, however, trying to tease out just what others are advocating or proposing and pointing out statements that are not correct. The statement here was that RDFS is not part of the RDF spec. That's not true. To get the benefits of RDFS (any maybe I should have said, if any) you don't need to go beyond the RDF spec. I do also believe that RDFS has benefits, namely its notions of a class and property hierarchy and domains and ranges on properties. (I'm not saying that RDFS is the best ontology language, or even a very good one, but RDFS does provide some interesting capabilities.) > Holger peter
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 23:14:13 UTC