- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:51:31 -0700
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>(Another not strictly WG topic for now...) > >In the 28-Aug MT draft, section 4, the class extensions ISEQ and >IBAG are required toi be disjoint. It's not clear why they need to >be disjoint. > >Indeed, I think this would prohibit some RDF that is arguably legitimate; e.g. > > [ a rdf:Bag ; a rdf:Seq ; > rdf:_1 "member 1" ; > rdf:_2 "member 2" ] > >I see nothing in RDFM&S that prohibits this, and I think the >resource thus described is clearly in the class extensions of both >rdf:Bag and rdf:Seq. Oh, OK. I guess I just assumed that they had to be disjoint since they were interpreted differently. In fact it would be easier if they weren't required to be disjoint, because then there really would be *nothing* special about rdf containers. I will follow the consensus view on this issue, and have an open mind on the matter. Pat --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 11:06:54 UTC