- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 23:32:49 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
>On Fri, 2002-11-08 at 13:40, Dan Brickley wrote: >> >> >> >> > rdf:object rdfs:range rdfs:Resource . * >> >> ...did we agree that all literals are resources? > >regardless, it's redundant to say range Resource. >Please let's don't. Well, strictly its not actually *redundant*, since range has 'if' semantics. So for example if we don't say that the range of rdf:object is rdfs:Resource, it is quite possible for rdf:object to not have ANY range. There are no closure rules that conclude a range assertion, note. Are you OK with that? I am, myself, but I can see that it might seem odd to some customers. And I guess that it would be OK to err on the side of redundancy. I was leaning towards putting those rdfs:Resource ranges in, in fact, together with a note that they produce no useful conclusions but are put in just for completeness' sake. It wouldn't require your engines to do anything new, and after all these rules aren't meant to be process rules. Comments? Pat > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 00:32:31 UTC