Re: some errors in the MT

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