W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2002

Re: pressing question about containermembershipproperty syntax

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 15:53:09 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, bwm@topmeadow.net

At 16:48 21/12/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
>I agree.

Thinking about it, things might not be that easy.  May need a tweak to 

I remember Danbri being concerned about urirefs that don't denote.  We may 
be back into an area similar to the "who defines what a uri means" teritory 
in that might be needing to say in the abstract syntax that undefined names 
from namespaces are syntactically invalid.

Pat, I think we want to say there ain't no such thing rdf:_01.  Is there a 
neat way to say that?

>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.
>>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" > }
>>>>   { < "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
>>>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?
>>>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
Received on Sunday, 22 December 2002 10:51:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC