- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 05:42:57 -0800
- To: Simon.Cox@csiro.au, holger@topquadrant.com, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Some of the predicates in the RDF and RDFS namespaces are indeed different from other predicates. These predicates have built-in meaning in RDF or RDFS. Whether this makes them fundamentally different from other predicates depends on what is meant by fundamental. At the low end of fundamental, you have answered your own question The predicate rdf:type is fundamentally different from other predicates because it is the predicate for typing. peter On 02/08/2015 07:46 PM, Simon.Cox@csiro.au wrote: > Is the proposition that the predicate rdf:type is fundamentally different > than other predicates? i.e. even though class membership is indicated by > a statement that looks like any other triple, it is somehow special. So > even though a triple with my:hasShape as the predicate looks similar, it > is somehow fundamentally different. > > Simon Cox > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU2LlhAAoJECjN6+QThfjzlcUIALS1hfNepEpWlgy5zrjy3/lz J30BwJ8UelBEvsk3xpUfFcRerpZqjRp3/pGWy9SRpBklrfYjQSY/fWHVmp8D79fR kTnPOBvXEYI31IInUxdtfJMee9hch8OvkJaYrxF6R+McXU0L7hNWFiw+T9iywo/m 8vxr1JjL4Mfw8cUYLk2w1soSlarwOj36971xwkR9eYLc7whHrYjrACq4md33T7Hi vTlHwb/11L8F/rBhTPDNgIzZ8zDHSnrVLxjtXPocOxfDbYra60v3gSpzJ7dZAEy3 oXzjiSKB6bt66lV/zdlyGhb2LeIEkv66wYcJ+hdpfgNpxHq+0nU6naM2gqvh2qE= =SoIY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 9 February 2015 13:43:30 UTC