- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:18:55 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
My take on this:
The namespace
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
is controlled by W3C. We can say that it does contain the name _:1 and it
does not contain the name _:01. I have never seen it suggested before that
_:01 was legal. I suggest that we make it clear in the vocabulary document
that it is not.
Brian
At 12:45 20/12/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>Guys, I have an urgent question. In a recent email, Peter P-S claimed the
>following:
>
>>It appears to me that there is such a distinction in RDF graphs, and,
>>moreover, both
>>
>> { < "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_1"
>> "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type"
>> "http://www.w3.org/2001/01/rdf-schema#ContainerMembershipProperty" > }
>>
>>and
>>
>> { < "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#_01"
>> "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type"
>> "http://www.w3.org/2001/01/rdf-schema#ContainerMembershipProperty" > }
>>
>>are legal RDF graphs, only one of which is RDFS-entailed by the empty RDF
>>graph.
>
>If Peter is right then we need to fix something; that is, either leading
>zeros in CMP names should be syntactically illegal, or else I need to
>tweak the RDFS semantics to make those CMP syntactic forms have their
>obvious meaning.
>
>I don't know for sure, however, if they are syntactically legal or not.
>Can anyone answer that question, please?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Pat
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell
>phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
>s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 06:18:04 UTC