- From: R.V.Guha <guha@guha.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 13:12:57 -0700
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- CC: guha@alpiri.com, Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@baltimore.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Actually, no. I do mean it. It should all *completely* go away.guha Dan Brickley wrote: > > > My claim was pretty modest: just that both rdf:type and rdf:_n constructs > > > are similarly privileged in RDF's XML syntax, but that neither deserve > > > any special architectural privilege w.r.t. the basic formalities of the > > > triples model. Whether we feel the one is more/less useful, intuitive etc > > > is a separate issue, and one that you're right to postone to future work > > > on syntax beautification. > > > > > > Dan > > > Amen. Stated differently, everything not in the first box > > in section 5 of the M&S spec should go away from the spec > > > > guha > > (that's a little stronger, but i think we basically agree...) > We don't want it all to go away, just to "go away" from that (central, > foundational) section of the spec. As DanC > noted last week, there are some constraints, such as that being the n-th member > of a container is a uniquely identifying property (ie. that each > rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty is a daml:FunctionalProperty ((?)), > which will need to be written down somewhere in one of the WG's specs... > > danbri
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 16:15:05 UTC