- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:00:42 +0100
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:34 30/04/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: >On 2002-04-29 20:49, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > > At 09:50 29/04/2002 -0700, Pat Hayes wrote: > > [...] > > If y'all want it to actually be the set of literals, then we would need > > to re-think this whole issue. > > > > Is there a problem here? I just heard Pat say no. > >I thought he asked a question. I didn't hear a 'no'. From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0514.html [[ > >Do we have a conflict here between the graph syntax and >the general semantics of RDF Classes? I don't think so. ]] Sounds kinda in the negative to me. [[ >Perhaps rdfs:Literal is not an rdfs:Class? Well, Im assuming it is a class, so it can't be the set of literals. That is my point. If y'all want it to actually be the set of literals, then we would need to re-think this whole issue. ]] Sorry if I'm not following the argument here. I saw an invitation to reconsider a fundamental part of the model theory, and I haven't understood what problem might cause us to do that. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 10:03:27 UTC