- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 13 Feb 2002 16:18:22 -0600
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 16:18, Frank Manola wrote: [...] > 1. Brian suggests that we (explicitly) decide on answering the > question: Does > > <stmt1> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > <stmt1> <rdf:subject> <subject> . > <stmt1> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . > <stmt1> <rdf:object> <object> . > > <stmt2> <rdf:type> <rdf:Statement> . > <stmt2> <rdf:subject> <subject> . > <stmt2> <rdf:predicate> <predicate> . > <stmt2> <rdf:object> <object> . > > <stmt1> <property> <foo> . > > entail: > > <stmt2> <property> <foo> . > > [Brian suggests that the answer is NO] I really wrestle with this. The M&S spec is quite clear that the answer is YES, as PeterPS has pointed out in his message to www-rdf-logic of 04 Feb 2002 13:24:08 -0500. We don't think that anybody is relying on that part of the M&S spec, but I'm pretty uncomfortable pulling the rug out from under somebody who *does* rely on it, but hasn't followed our recent work. We can make up a new design, but I think we should use new URIs for the terms in this new design. I don't want to delay a decision... but in good conscience, I may have to vote against this to be sure The Director takes a look at it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:17:58 UTC