- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:25:51 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 13:54 21/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > At 22:28 20/03/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > [...] > > >Oh... but more substantively: > > >the hassle of dealing with an infinite number > > >of rdf:_1 rdf:_2 things. >Brian: > > Hmmm. Its been proposed we make all those subproperties of some common > > super property, e.g. rdf:member. Is there anything we are likely > > to want > > to say about any rdf:_nnn that is not true of rdfs:member. Would > > that deal > > with this, or am I missing the point? > >The latter :( ... > >The problem is that the daml:list construction with an explicit end is >viewed as safer vis-a-vis a closed world assumption that is being made. I'm aware of the point about closure. I thinks there are ways to deal with that. DanC brought up another point about handling the infinity of rdf:_nnn properties. I took that to mean that there are problems e.g. stating that they are all of type rdfs:Property. I now realise that it would be somewhat tedious to define an infinite set of subproperties, e.g. foo:_1 a subproperty of rdf:_1, foo:_2 etc. Brian
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 09:27:56 UTC