- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:15:34 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Thanks Pat! > >It would be good to get this published. We said we would allow a week >to give folks time to review publication candidates. We have less than >that before Friday. However, if folks have reviewed it to their >satisfaction by then, I'd see no point in delaying. > >So unless there are objections, I may ask at Friday's telecon >whether we are happy to publish. If anyone wants to focus, I'd suggest looking at the stuff on RDF entailment. Here's a question that occurred to me, for example. Suppose we know that aaa rdf:type bbb . and also bbb rdfs:subClassOf ccc . Now, it follows that aaa is in fact a member of the class ccc; but do we want to say that this means that aaa rdf:type ccc must be true? If we do, that table of RDF entailment rules would need some more entries. Right now it reflects the view that being in a class doesn't necessarily mean having that class as a type, only having some subclass of it as a type. If there is any debate on this it's not necessarily a showstopper either since it would be easy to make appropriate changes in subsequent versions, and if anyone out there has strong views on issues like this they will likely complain rather than be misled. Just thought I'd get the issue aired a little. 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 Wednesday, 19 September 2001 13:15:38 UTC