Michael Schneider wrote: > Of course, if there really was an 'rdf:sameAs' in RDF, one would than also > have to think about supporting 'sameAs' in RDF-S, too, as a reasoning > feature (not necessarily of course, I know). And this might have led to some > difficulties. So 'sameAs' might really have been /intentionaly/ left out of > RDF in favour of an analog OWL concept in the future. Any SemWeb historian > here, who can explain this to me? It was intentional. RDFS reasoning is meant to be fairly easy; I think the datatype stuff somewhat obstructs that. JeremyReceived on Friday, 5 October 2007 10:01:37 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:06 UTC