- From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:20:00 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hmm. I think that that would be a change (but probably one that has little effect). I believe that this was put in precisely so that predicate IRIs could map into something that is not in IR, but that if the predicate IRI was also a subject or object it had to map into IR to have a chance of being true. peter On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > Peter, I just noticed that the simple interpretation mappings state: > > 4. a mapping IS from IRIs into (IR union IP) > > and that the ..union IP.. is redundant, since (as noted later in the text) IP may overlap with IR. SInce on the next line, IL is defined as a mapping into IR without mentioning IP, this is also misleading. I think this should read > > 4. a mapping IS from IRIs into IR. > > Do you agree? > > Pat > > PS what sent me checking this was the possibility in the generalized syntax of having a literal in property position. You can probably retrace my steps at this point. > ------------------------------------------------------------ > IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 > 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office > Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax > FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile > phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 21:20:28 UTC