- From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@talis.com>
- Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 13:21:30 +0000
- To: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- CC: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>, SPARQL Working Group WG <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On 05/03/2010 10:56 PM, Gregory Williams wrote: > On Mar 5, 2010, at 12:29 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >> We already have sd:languageExtension, subproperty of sd:feature, which does not define what an "extension" is. I read that as saying deference the range and see what you get - it's not the general concept of an extension that matters but the details of each specific one. In this aspects, property functions are similar; what matters is the detail of each one and the global naming. Custom filter functions are the same - there we know where in a query they can be used. > > Lee -- this is exactly the point I was trying to make on irc yesterday, but I think Andy was able to vocalize it more effectively. > > >> sd:propertyFeature rdfs:subClassOf sd:feature ; > > subPropertyOf, presumably? > > [snip] > >> These two are features - whether they are property functions or data is neither here nor there. All it says is the feature is accessible by using certain property. > > This seems like an important point. For the rdfs:member case, this seems like it has some overlap with entailment, but obviously the general case can fall outside of the entailment work (like text:matches). Yes, there is overlap but it's not the same. It isn't the complete entailment regime being implemented, it's just one aspect of it. To commit to an entailment regime is all or nothing. Andy > > .greg > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 7 March 2010 13:21:59 UTC