- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:53:53 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Well, I'm late with the RDFS tidyup draft for the WG, so as pennance I'll try to do better to sync it with the MT doc, now that there is a MT W3C Tech Report it can cite. Nice work BTW, regardless of bugs. Dan On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Pat Hayes wrote: > There are some serious bugs in the RDFS closure table in section 6 of > the MT WP. See a recent message from Peter Patel-Schneider and my > reply, on rdf-logic > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Sep/0033.html. > I will try to get the bugs out and produce a revision as soon as > possible (couple of days). Along the way I will also fix all the > little typos and add a wee bit of explanatory prose here and there to > prevent the misinterpretations that seem to have been produced. > > One matter that I would like some feedback on is, what to do about > rdf:type rdfs:Literal. Since it is syntactically illegal in RDF to > write > > xxx rdf:type rdfs:Literal . > > when xxx is a literal, and since this is false in RDFS if xxx does > not denote a literal value, there would seem to be little utility in > having rdfs:Literal in the language at all, since it is impossible to > say anything true about it other than things like > > rdfs:Literal rdf:type rdfs:Class . > > which have it in subject position. So I decided to simply ignore it. > However, I didn't actually say that it was being ignored, so Peter > was right to slap my wrist about this. > > I am inclined to simply avoid this issue right now by explicitly > stating in section 6 that the RDFS analysis simply excludes all > mention of rdfs:Literal, with a brief explanation of why and > suggestion that this will be revisited in future work. If nobody > objects strongly to this way of getting out of this problem, I will > circulate a draft wording soon. > > ....Sorry .... > > Pat > >
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2001 19:53:54 UTC