- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 21 Mar 2002 09:46:52 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2002-03-21 at 07:42, Brian McBride 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. > > 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. Yes: rdf:_n are UniqueProperty's. Or at least: daml:first is. > Would that deal > with this, or am I missing the point? You're on the right track, but until you actually get to first/rest (or something equivalent) I don't think you'll completely address the issue. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 10:47:23 UTC