- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 15:48:51 -0000
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > > >> 5: Do we allow S-A idiom? > > From the ontology maintenance perspective, I don't > think that the problem of multiple vocabularies goes > away with the combination of the proposed pair > of bNode idioms and the S-A idiom, so all my earlier > expressed concerns apply as well. > The new MT makes them interchangeable. There would not be a multiple vocabs problem with Pat's magic dust. In particular we would have <rdf:int.map> <rdfs:subPropertyOf> <rdf:value> . etc. I don't like the URI bloat, but apart from that I see S-A as attractive. I believe we could use S-A without the URI bloat, but we're then getting onto third-order considerations. I think the S-A idiom may well prove more attractive to the document writer than the D idiom. (It is less characters to type). Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 10:49:28 UTC