- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:44:15 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Probably. The infinite entailments thing is very crazy, but the rdfs:member property is reasonably useful. I would be more in favour of making it less crazy e.g. limiting the instances of rdfs:member to rdfs:_N properties that actually exist in the graph. - Steve On 2011-10-20, at 13:28, Ivan Herman wrote: > Steve, Dan > > Would you be ready to at least remove them from the core RDFS semanitcs, ie, the entailments? > > Ivan > > ---- > Ivan Herman > web: http://www.ivan-herman.net > mobile: +31 64 1044 153 > > On 20 Oct 2011, at 13:21, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > >> On 20 October 2011 13:13, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote: >>> I wouldn't be comfortable with marking Seq as "archaic" or similar unless there's a viable alternative, and I don't think List counts. >> >> Me neither. Nor "quaint", "twee", "retro" or "regrettable". It's just >> what it is, with no great mystery or confusion. >> >> Dan > -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 12:44:46 UTC