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

RE: A basis for convergence and closure?

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>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDCEPPCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> >
> >> 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> .


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).

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 10:49:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:09 UTC