Re: ISSUE-71: second bug tracking example

Alexandre Bertails <> wrote on 05/30/2013 01:58:50 PM:

> ...
> > This being said, I think there are ways you can address the 
> > issue and keep membershipPredicate. We could require 
> > to be specified rather than have a default value for one, couldn't we?
> You cannot assume that the RDF triples are ordered and that you'll see
> the membershipPredicate before it's used. That means that the
> semantics for the predicate defined with membershipPredicate can be
> undefined for some time.

I understand, and I can see why this might be undesirable but that's a 
completely different problem though, isn't it?

My understanding of the non-monotonicity issue Henry raised is based on 
the fact that in a first instance, because you haven't seen any definition 
of membershipPredicate, you could infere that rdf:member - the default 
value - is the membershipPredicate. If there is no default value that 
problem goes away, doesn't it?
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group

Received on Thursday, 30 May 2013 21:22:49 UTC