- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:20:37 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Hi David, Can you please articulate one or more use cases to accompany this feature request? Thanks. Regards, Dave On Apr 29, 2012, at 19:43, David Booth wrote: > If this has already been considered and rejected by the WG then please > ignore, but . . . > > It would be helpful if the RDF and RDFS specs defined inverses for the > properties that they define. For example, if > > :x rdf:type :C . > > then one might write: > > :C rdf:isTypeOf :x . > > and similarly for other properties. > > I have resorted to defining my own inverse properties for some of these, > but it seems silly to do so, rather than standardizing them, especially > since it wouldn't add anything significant to the semantics. > > > -- > David Booth, Ph.D. > http://dbooth.org/ > > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily > reflect those of his employer. > >
Received on Monday, 30 April 2012 12:21:07 UTC