- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:42:06 -0800
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, foaf-protocols@lists.foaf-project.org
Pat Hayes wrote: > Dan is absolutely correct. See below. > >> >> I don't think so. I'm pretty sure the 2004 specs are silent on the >> use of datatypes as properties. Both directions are consistent >> semantic extensions. > > Yes, you are right. So this semantic extension is perfectly legal, > contrary to what I was claiming. <Sound of crows being eaten /> > > Sigh. However, it seems utterly crazy to me to use the same URI to > denote both a mapping (inside a typed literal) and its inverse mapping > (as a property). If I had even thought that anyone would want do that, > I would have urged that we made it illegal back when we were writing > the specs. The only possible reason for it that I can see would be to > set out to make things deliberately confusing. I find Henry's examples fairly compelling, and wouldn't want them to be illegal. Not something I would do myself, but certainly plausible. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 22 February 2010 21:43:14 UTC