- From: John McClure <jmcclure@hypergrove.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:16:24 -0700
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Interesting. If there is no difference in the semantics, then why was rdf:ID created in the first place?Why is it necessary to have this declaredAs if there is no difference, whose function appears to be to differentiate? Seems pretty *darn* (smile) clear to me that rdf:ID functionally duplicates XML ID and is hence a declaration because it'd be dumb to have multiple definitions for something in the same *context*, a concept enforced by XML ID. Anyway what do you think a model would look like that contains Statement, Assertion & Declaration classes -- surely you're not saying that such a model would be senseless to consider or build! Thanks >-----Original Message----- >From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ihmc.us] >Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 1:58 PM >To: John McClure >Cc: Bijan Parsia; Owl Dev >Subject: RE: declaredAs > > >> >>>But rdf:ID doesn't get you *any sort of >>>declaration*. It's *just a funny way of making an assertion*. >> >>Nope, I don't agree -- I don't see this in the specs anywhere. > >Well, the RDF specs say explicitly that RDF consists entirely of >assertions, they give a normative semantics which defines the >assertions, and they do not mention declarations anywhere. Seems >pretty damn clear to me. > >Pat Hayes >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell >phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >
Received on Friday, 10 August 2007 22:16:27 UTC