- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:48:51 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I agree.
#g
--
At 11:18 AM 12/21/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>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
>
>-------------------
>Graham Klyne
><GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 11:43:31 UTC