- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:07:16 -0500
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
This is a request for guidance from the WG. There are some RDFS triples that some people think should be true in every rdfs interpretation, while other people have doubts. The MT itself can be phrased either way, so we human beings have to decide. They are all concerned with what might be called RDFS navel-gazing. 1 rdfs:ConstraintProperty rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . 2. rdfs:comment rdfs:range rdfs:Literal . 3. rdfs:label rdfs:range rdfs:Literal . Currently 1. is included in the rdfs closure, but the other two are not. However, Jos' engine and CWM do not generate 1.. Peter P-S thinks that the RDFS spec states 2 and 3; my own view right now is that that wording in the spec is better seen as a syntactic constraint, and shouldn't be stated as a range constraint. But I can be persuaded. Bear in mind that including such triples in a closure can have knock-on effects on other triples that might be inferrable from these using other closure rules. Anyone got any strong views on any of these one way or the other? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 5 October 2001 11:07:13 UTC