- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:22:08 -0500
- To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 27, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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, Yes, of course. Forget it, I had a brain fart there. Pat > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Sunday, 30 June 2013 13:22:35 UTC