Re: Feedback request

[a bit late, but had a holiday]

> Quick request(s) for feedback. There are 5 parts to this message.
>
> Please say if you think that any of the following entailments should
> NOT be valid in RDF or RDFS, or have any problems with the reasoning
> sketched. Obviously "10" can be any string.

they are all OK I think

> 1. (RDF)
> aaa ppp "10" .
> -->
> aaa ppp _:xxx .
>
> 2. (RDF)
> aaa ppp "10"^^datatypefoo .
> -->
> aaa ppp _:xxx .
>
> 3. (RDF)
> aaa ppp "10"@lang .
> -->
> aaa ppp _:xxx .
>
>  From the above, and assuming bare literals denote themselves, then IR
> must contain all bare literals (cuzof 1) and all values that any
> datatype can map them into (cuzof 2) and maybe all pairs of all those
> things with lang tags (not yet sure about that last one). So we might
> as well say that IR contains all of LV, seems to me. In which case we
> would get
>
> 4. (RDFS)
> rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Resource .
>
> 5. (RDFS)
> aaa rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
> --->
> aaa rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Literal .
>
> ------
>
> Terminology question: now we have lists, should the term 'container'
> be understood to include lists as well as seqs, bags and alts? If so,
> does anyone have an suggestion for a generic term for the older
> containers? (Simple containers? Open containers? Bushy containers?)
>
> ------
>
> Can anyone fill in the blank for
>
> rdfs:comment rdfs:range ??? .

_:x (don't know)

> ------
>
> Er..sorry, I ought to know this, but I am honestly unable to recall
> where the hell we are now. Have we decided to NOT allow property
> datatyping, ie the use of a datatype URI as a property to link a node
> to a bare literal, with the datatype implication that the node
> denotes the resulting value? Or to ALLOW it? That is, should
>
> 6.
> aaa ppp "10"^^datatypefoo .
> --->
> aaa ppp _:xxx .
> _:xxx datatypefoo "10"
>
> or not? If so, how about the reverse entailment??

I really expect so
but not for the reverse

> ------
>
> Finally, here is my current take on the total RDF and RDFS
> namespaces. Please correct any errors or omissions. In particular,
> did we trash rdf:containerMembershipProperty?
>
> RDF:
> rdf:type   rdf:Property
> rdf:Statement rdf:subject rdf:predicate rdf:object
> rdf:Seq rdf:Bag rdf:Alt rdf:_1 rdf:_2 ...
> rdf:List rdf:first rdf:rest rdf:nil
>
> RDFS:
> rdfs:domain rdfs:range rdfs:Resource rdfs:Literal rdfs:Class
> rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member rdfs:Datatype
> rdfs:seeAlso, rdfs:isDefinedBy, rdfs:comment  rdfs:label

rdfs:XMLLiteral ???

> -----

[added from a later message]

> Just how minimal do we want the list semantics to be? In particular,
> is this satisfiable? :
>
> 7.
> rdf:nil rdf:rest _:xxx .

no

and there are also other examples such as
  rdfs:Resource rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Datatype .
  rdfs:Resource rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:Literal .
  ...


> ? Or can I rule that out? If not, our claim that lists are bounded
> seems rather hollow, and that was the point of having them in the
> first place.....

let's keep it in

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 18:41:34 UTC