- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@attbi.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 14:18:27 -0500
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
I thought we decided that rdf:_1 etc. could be attached to things in the context of the idea that they "had no semantics" and that specifying domains for them didn't really constrain what they could be attached to (because domain specs aren't really "constraints" unless some processor interprets them that way), but that the "intent" was that they were for expressing container membership (if not, why do we call them container membership properties?), and if you attached, say, rdf:_1 to a resource, you could reasonably infer that that resource was a container. We seem to be going around in circles: 1. rdf:_01 has domain rdfs:Container 2. we can't really enforce (1) as a constraint 3. so we might as well remove it (?) Brian McBride wrote: >At 14:33 09/11/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote > >>> rdfs:member rdfs:domain rdfs:Container . > >Where did that come from? I thought we decided that rdf:_1 etc >could be attached to things that are not containers. Whoops. I think I must have read that somewhere. OK, I can remove that. Pat
Received on Monday, 11 November 2002 14:02:16 UTC